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

[SilverBear]

Oh no, I grew up dirt poor. I share in no "privileges" you speak of, and am willing to acknowledge that as a heterosexual I am able to avoid homosexual hardships, but the reciprocal is true as well, homosexuals don't have to deal with the issues that come naturally to heterosexuals either.

what issues?

 

[SilverBear]

Then they are not in fact equivalent, so there goes that defense.

Moreover, if the flag represents the teacher and LGBTQ students, that is different than representing everybody.

Once you have the "Everyone is Welcome" sign you don't need the other unless your purpose is to elaborate beyond everyone.

and by demanding the flag be taken down it says clearly that everyone is NOT welcome despite what the sign says

 

[SilverBear]

No, I was addressing orientations. Objectum sexuals often indicate that it is an orientation. And some report feeling romantic feelings, and that the objects communicate with them.

So when I spoke of homosexual, heterosexual, objectum sexual, I was speaking of orientations.

You were making it about sex. Man up and own what you said.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You realize this isn't a universal, right? White people are not the majority everywhere, but in terms of American politics, they have had the dominant power for centuries and still arguably do

I'm not saying it's universal...I'm talking about how the woke left uses the term "ally". I don't know anyone else who uses the term that way.

Also, definitely sensing some white fragility here,

That's a pretty racist concept.

as if you have to be the victim because someone's calling you out on your privilege and you only find the instances where you can feel like someone's demeaning you, which can arguably just be your own misperceptions in the first place and not malicious intent even if it can be interpreted as such reasonably.

I'm not claiming to be a victim.

I'm just pointing out that whites are the only race it's socially acceptable to be racist against. The fact that you feel comfortable tossing around racist concepts like "white fragility" just provides further evidence I'm right.

And as I've said before, you don't have the struggles black people have had for generations, you don't get to act like this is some equal situation because you can cherry pick data or point to other minorities and tell black people they're ungrateful, lazy, etc.

See? I told you that you automatically assume people are victims because of their identity. It's the central tenet of your political dogma....I don't know why you try to act like it's not when I point it out. You go right back to it in your next post.

Being black does not make someone a victim.

 

[tall73]

and by demanding the flag be taken down it says clearly that everyone is NOT welcome despite what the sign says

No, it does not. It says they want to remain neutral on topics such as sexual orientation, etc.

 

[muichimotsu]

None of those are necessary once you put up the sign "Everyone is Welcome." That means everyone. Nor did I sexualize anything, but responded that the school want to be neutral in regards to sexual orientation.

They likely want to be neutral in regards to gender identity, and the rest as well.




No, if the flag is equivalent to a family photo then it says something about him. If saying something about yourself is OK, then a straight flag should be fine. A family photo does not say anything about persecution of course. So are they equivalent or not?

The problem is neutrality doesn't always come across as compassionate, it can seem detached, like the problem doesn't matter

Straight pride flag is rooted in privilege and prejudice, as if gay people are being uppity and demanding more when they are demanding equality, same as people responding to a BLM with White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter, both of which diminish and borderline gaslight black people

The flag is not equivalent to the family photo in the content, as I already noted, since one entails more general affirmation of support, while the other could be construed as "indoctrinating" children about something, like the gay teacher's spouse being some "evidence" that the children are being taught to be gay rather than that being gay is okay (which it is)

 

[tall73]

You were making it about sex. Man up and own what you said.

No, I in fact was not. You just saying it again and again demonstrates nothing. Perhaps it is your goal to inject sex. I spoke of orientation, and I meant orientation.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not saying it's universal...I'm talking about how the woke left uses the term "ally". I don't know anyone else who uses the term that way.

Anecdotal evidence now? Not sure why I'm surprised, you keep evading any sense of responsibility to terms not being set in stone, so now you just say, "Well, I've never heard it used another way, thus it means this,"

That's a pretty racist concept.

Yeah, heaven forbid we call out toxic behavior from white people, that's totally "racist" and not accountability for someone trying to play victim while claiming others are doing the same (hypocrisy!)

I'm not claiming to be a victim.

I'm just pointing out that whites are the only race it's socially acceptable to be racist against. The fact that you feel comfortable tossing around racist concepts like "white fragility" just provides further evidence I'm right.

Insinuation is a thing, you're suggesting that white people are victims because you mistakenly think white fragility is racist, when it really isn't unless you stretch racism to mean something more than what it is to feel like you aren't losing relevance as a white person (which if you are, so what, world doesn't revolve around whiteness)

See? I told you that you automatically assume people are victims because of their identity. It's the central tenet of your political dogma....I don't know why you try to act like it's not when I point it out. You go right back to it in your next post.

Being black does not make someone a victim.

Pretty sure I didn't say anything remotely that specific, but that black people are disproportionately affected as such. That doesn't mean white people always succeed or that black people cannot, I've said this half a dozen times and you keep ignoring that to claim, "See, look at how hypocritical and condescending you are,"

Being black means there will often, not always, be struggles that occur financially, but some are especially common in terms of social regard to blackness in contrast to whiteness. The fact that you want to spin the numbers and suggest it's overblown is your own confirmation bias and, much as you want to try and call it racist (it isn't), white fragility that refuses to admit you're part of an issue by downplaying systemic issues while supposedly "fixing" them in a way that doesn't inconvenience your comfortable white existence.

Are you claiming I must hate myself as a white person? Because I don't: I acknowledge that I have a societal privilege that non white people don't have and should use that in a way to better society as a whole so we don't have to deal with nearly as much racial injustice as we do. And that isn't condescending when I actually listen to black struggles instead of assuming I just know better: I find myself constantly having to reexamine things and consider my privilege as a white person in trying to assume black people are somehow overreacting.

 

[RDKirk]

The problem is neutrality doesn't always come across as compassionate, it can seem detached, like the problem doesn't matter

Straight pride flag is rooted in privilege and prejudice, as if gay people are being uppity and demanding more when they are demanding equality, same as people responding to a BLM with White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter, both of which diminish and borderline gaslight black people

I was in elementary school--a segregated black elementary school, with black teachers and a black principal--in the latter 50s and early 60s.

During that time, white people were bombing black churches and murdering black children my own age. White people were burning busses with black people in them. White people were fire-hosing blacks and setting police dogs upon us. I was prevented from interacting with any black children--could not go to the same movie theaters or swimming pools or even the same playground.

And yet, interestingly enough, now that I ponder it, our black teachers and principals never brought up such matters in the classroom. It's certainly not as though it didn't matter to them--they were victims too. But those weren't the issues they had us in the classroom to discuss.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, I in fact was not. You just saying it again and again demonstrates nothing. Perhaps it is your goal to inject sex. I spoke of orientation, and I meant orientation.

But not all orientation is sexual in nature, I already brought up romantic orientation, seemingly just conflated together by you, which means you would be diminishing and marginalizing aromantics as you claim I do for objectophiliacs.

 

[muichimotsu]

I was in elementary school--a segregated black elementary school, with black teachers and a black principal--in the latter 50s and early 60s.

During that time, white people were bombing black churches and murdering black children my own age. White people were burning busses with black people in them. White people were fire-hosing blacks and setting police dogs upon us. I was prevented from interacting with any black children--could not go to the same movie theaters or swimming pools or even the same playground.

And yet, interestingly enough, now that I ponder it, our black teachers and principals never brought up such matters in the classroom. It's certainly not as though it didn't matter to them--they were victims too. But those weren't the issues they had us in the classroom to discuss.

Probably because they would've been fired to even insinuate a problem, these days it's not the same situation, but ti doesn't mean black people cannot still be gaslit and condescended to by even their own race, let alone white people that try to act like post MLK Jr. there's no more racial problems at all in society

 

[tall73]

The problem is neutrality doesn't always come across as compassionate, it can seem detached, like the problem doesn't matter

No, it comes across as the government needs to be neutral and not show favor or disfavor to a particular orientation or to a particular gender, or group of genders or orientations.

Straight pride flag is rooted in privilege and prejudice

Yes, which is why it is not the same as a photo and that argument by him was invalid.

The flag is not equivalent to the family photo in the content, as I already noted

Agreed, they are not equivalent. So his argument was invalid.

And since the flag is not neutral but is stated by the teacher to represent him and his LGBTQ+ students, it is not neutral either. And the government has no business showing favor or disfavor to a particular orientation or to a particular gender, or to a particular group of genders or orientations.

 

[muichimotsu]

How is it a microaggression?

It's not even a positive or negative statement. It's not saying it's good to be white, it's not even saying it's bad to be white. It's just saying it's "ok".

It's completely devoid of any aggression at all. The only way I can see someone disagreeing with the statement is if they are racist against whites.

The problem is insinuating anyone is claiming being white in itself is bad versus that it can lead to mistaken assumptions because of societal norms.

False dichotomy: objecting to white privilege is not racism because it is not assuming malicious intent or innately bad qualities based on racial status, but that society gives them favored treatment, learn the difference before remotely trying to use this equivocation again.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, it comes across as the government needs to be neutral and not show favor or disfavor to a particular orientation or to a particular gender, or group of genders or orientations.

Not showing disfavor with a pride flag, because straight people are not excluded, they are merely not given recognition that they already have, while LGBTQ deserve that recognition, not extra favor or anything of that nature.

Yes, which is why it is not the same as a photo and that argument by him was invalid.

Except straight pride is as idiotic as white pride, neither have been persecuted in America, so it's a disingenuous and passive aggressive attempt to fight back against what they feel is a threat.

Agreed, they are not equivalent. So his argument was invalid.

And since the flag is not neutral but is stated by the teacher to represent him and his LGBTQ+ students, it is not neutral either. And the government has no business showing favor or disfavor to a particular orientation or to a particular gender, or to a particular group of genders or orientations.

The problem is assuming some absolute objectivity and neutrality, which is fundamentally impossible, period. And the presence of support for minorities is not favoring it, that'd be giving them special treatment in some sense apart from their straight peers, which isn't being done.

 

[tall73]

But not all orientation is sexual in nature, I already brought up romantic orientation, seemingly just conflated together by you, which means you would be diminishing and marginalizing aromantics as you claim I do for objectophiliacs.

I mentioned objectum sexuals and heterosexuals.

I didn't mention aromantics.

 

[muichimotsu]

I mentioned objectum sexuals and heterosexuals.

I didn't mention aromantics.

Then you miss the point of the neutrality in question, but moreso that you act like pretending everything is equal is not a sincere attempt at equality, but a facade, which is why I brought up how neutrality is not always going to work when the goal is making students genuinely feel accepted and like they can speak to their teachers without being exposed and made vulnerable to needless bullying.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah. 80 million or so.

Look, this is the group that supports tearing down flags and labeling those who don't racists. They make no complaint of people wearing masks assaulting people at right wing rallies. They just got a statue of Robert E Lee taken down last week...I don't recall a single discussion of the legitimacy of such actions.

If you personally argued against this sort of thing in the past or even just openly doubted the wisdom of removing Confederate flags....just link the post and I'll admit that my statement doesn't apply to you.

Since you can't, let's not pretend your position on this is somehow ambiguous.

Yeah, you're totally "objective" in making a tu quoque about a select group of people that you think represent the left as a whole and then generalize as if there wasn't discussion just because you don't recall it (argument from incredulity!)

Just because not everything has the populist absolute democratic vote doesn't make it some oppressive conspiracy like you seem to insinuate, to say nothing of more broad brushes about the idea that all flags are equal in terms of the message they send from a government context, like the Confederate flag (a flag of a traitorous secessionist "nation") and that calling out racism is somehow bigotry when you don't like the idea of accountability for enabling a societal problem by inaction.

 

[tall73]

Not showing disfavor with a pride flag, because straight people are not excluded, they are merely not given recognition that they already have, while LGBTQ deserve that recognition, not extra favor or anything of that nature.

That is not neutrality. Your thinking that LGBTQ deserve recognition and straight people do not is simply your view. And that viewpoint is not what the school is tasked with teaching

The problem is assuming some absolute objectivity and neutrality, which is fundamentally impossible, period. And the presence of support for minorities is not favoring it, that'd be giving them special treatment in some sense apart from their straight peers, which isn't being done.

"Representation" of any group is not what the school is being tasked with doing. But it is what the teacher said the flag was doing.

“But I followed it up by saying, ‘If you have a problem with the flag representing me, or students who identify as LGBTQ+, then you can probably find a different class,’”

So the school removed it. Therefore, no group was "represented" by the speech of the government school, and there was neutrality.

 

[tall73]

Then you miss the point of the neutrality in question, but moreso that you act like pretending everything is equal is not a sincere attempt at equality, but a facade, which is why I brought up how neutrality is not always going to work when the goal is making students genuinely feel accepted and like they can speak to their teachers without being exposed and made vulnerable to needless bullying.

I did not in fact miss the point. I was pointing out that if your position accepts representation of one group you should then accept representation from another group in the same way. But you don't.

What I favor is not representing any group--neutrality.

I think none of them should be "represented" in the classroom, because that is not what the school is tasked with doing.

 

[tall73]

which if you are, so what, world doesn't revolve around whiteness)

Please define whiteness.