The Woke Mind Virus

[impartialobserver]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

It's a two way conversation, partial. 

I voice my displeasure with woke content, and you think that is a 1st Amendment violation. That needs to be discussed. 

If dealing with a differing opinion is too much for you then I don't know what to tell you. 

 

You are free to complain to your hearts content.. and I am free to not. See how that works?

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

No, my posts are saying that you're cool with woke content regardless of whether you've seen it or not, and you think it's a 1st Amendment violation to speak out against it. 

Are you saying that is inaccurate? 

Its not a 1st amendment violation to complain about it. Clear enough? 

My stance is that society should free to produce such content and the members of society should be free to like it or not. 

I do get the impression that you would support legislation that would ban "woke" content. 

Edited April 30 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I was looking at the entire time span given.. "80's, 90's, and such". So when viewed from 1980 to the present day.. yes, they factors I listed have changed our lives. I worked at a factory in the late 90's.. very little automation. Lots of manual labor. While it did close, I have been to its counterpart.. almost fully automated. The old crusty factory workers that I saw everyday are no longer.. at least not in this setting. 

yeaehhhh - but the comment specifically was :  "Well... let's ask why this wasn't an issue in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s... or ... when / why did it become an issue ?  "

So the statement seems to be that it became an issue after that.

Society is always changing for sure as you say - although some would say the more things change the more they stay the same in some respects. The kids always come up with cool new terms for things, listen to the wrong music and wear stupid fashions, and parents always just don't understand.  etc.

But every now and then there's a fairly dramatic 'shift'.  And there's usually a reason. And i'm not sure it can be sort of written off as "the internets"  

Edited April 30 by CdnFox

[impartialobserver]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yeaehhhh - but the comment specifically was :  "Well... let's ask why this wasn't an issue in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s... or ... when / why did it become an issue ?  "

So the statement seems to be that it became an issue after that.

Society is always changing for sure as you say - although some would say the more things change the more they stay the same in some respects. The kids always come up with cool new terms for things, listen to the wrong music and wear stupid fashions, and parents always just don't understand.  etc.

But every now and then there's a fairly dramatic 'shift'.  And there's usually a reason. And i'm not sure it can be sort of written off as "the internets"  

So then lets ask.. how did the internet change things? First, for example if you were trans/gay/whatever in 1983 and you did not live in SF, LA, NYC, or Chicago.. you generally kept that to yourself. There was no open community for it in most places. Now.. the internet. The internet allows you to express yourself and in such a manner that there is no consequence. Yeah. so person xyz in Fargo, ND saw your profile or what you said on FB. You can keep scrolling them, block them, etc. If I was gay and wanted to find a group of like minded individuals, the internet is full of them. When you get a bunch of like minded individuals together and in a space where they have no dissenting views.. they embolden. And so on down the road.. they decide to enter the public realm and politics. Lastly, the internet has definitely helped the slow, steady campaign to have their way of life gain greater acceptance. 

Edited May 1 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So then lets ask.. how did the internet change things? First, for example if you were trans/gay/whatever in 1983 and you did not live in SF, LA, NYC, or Chicago.. you generally kept that to yourself.

Dude that's when aids was a thing and there were gay communities banding together to deal with the tragedy in droves.

But - if your arugment is gays didn't socialize till the internet - that was only a decade  later so is it entirely relevant to the changes he's talking about?

 

Quote

When you get a bunch of like minded individuals together and in a space where they have no dissenting views.. they embolden. And so on down the road.. they decide to enter the public realm and politics. Lastly, the internet has definitely helped the slow, steady campaign to have their way of life gain greater acceptance. 

Gays were winning pubic office back in 1983.  And have been for years since

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_openly_LGBT_politicians_in_the_United_States

I realize for you guys gay marriage is a newer thing but it's been around and popular in Canada for over 20 years now.

Like - there just wasn't a major change to gay lives or culture in the last half a decade that would say why it wasn't an issue then but is an issue now. I'm just not seeing it.

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Dude that's when aids was a thing and there were gay communities banding together to deal with the tragedy in droves.

But - if your arugment is gays didn't socialize till the internet - that was only a decade  later so is it entirely relevant to the changes he's talking about?

its only one place but I grew up in Boise, idaho.. there was one "gay bar" and even then it was not exclusively gay. The gays/lesbians still had to be selective about when to go this place. 1985.. there was no internet so tell me how gays found each other in 1985 (as an example).

Your article while legit does not give many names. 25 or so is not all that numerous compared to the total elected from 1973 to the present. 1973 being the earliest date listed. 

I am talking about the concept in general. The AIDS epidemic at first was mostly contained to certain cities where the gay population was relatively high and known. But that is beside the point. The point is them being bold enough to enter the public or political realm. They do this because they can effortlessly and without confrontation band together. the anonymity of the internet emboldens folks. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

You continue with this false dilemma that we must choose porn or your SNM bondage classes for kids in K-12. 

You claim to be so concerned with porn, but you ignored my questions:

Do you support legislation pushed by Republicans in various right leaning states to regulate online porn more to require age verification to help prevent kids from accessing it? Any other measures?

I'd have to see a specific legislative proposal to comment on whether I support it or not, but I don't have any problem with excluding the underage if it's done in a way that respects the privacy of others.

 

Quote

Again, you are pushing YOUR values regarding what is a healthy sexual relationship and dismissing mine as prudish. My point here is that neither of us should be pushing our values regarding what is or is not a healthy sexual relationship onto children outside of basics like consent, safety, and consequences. 

You are the one being obtuse and quite frankly, disgustingly rude, with your mocking me about blow jobs while in the next sentence acting like you don't want to teach them about how to engage in (recreate) porn activities while you then flip back to a girl worrying about why her anus hurts because they did not use lube. 

Someone like you needs to be kept as far away from a classroom full of kids as possible. You have no business determining standards for what constitutes healthy sexual relationships or showing them how to do it. Then you wonder why folks think folks that are pushing crap like the PRIDE flag in the classroom have sexual deviant tendencies or there is some kind of sexual thing to it... that Venn diagram is starting to look an awful lot like a circle for your views on putting this smut into classrooms and your support for the PRIDE flag...
 

Lol. At least you're consistent in that you don't like colorful examples to illustrate the point in a practical way. Which, again, is my beef with your argument. If you're not talking about these things in a practical, relevant--and compelling--way, then your message doesn't much matter. 

You know, funny as it is, I've NEVER tried to tell educators how to do their jobs. I've never pushed my views on anyone, nor tried to communicate any information to any children outside of my own. You, on the other hand, intend to do exactly that. You look at the decisions that these educators have made locally -- these people who have both the pedagogical expertise and the relationship with real teens--and you wag your finger and say "I know better. Get those books out of there." 

You've thoroughly confused our roles here. I simply asked you to examine the merits of alternative approaches amid a changing social landscape. But your response is that we should both stay out of teachers business--as long as the teachers teach the way you want them to.🙄

 

Quote

No, I can't decide how people feel, but I can certainly point out objective facts. A biological male, who feels like a woman, pretends to look like one, act like one, is not actually one. That doesn't make me intolerant, it makes me a sane rational human being and your conflating that with intolerance is EXACTLY why the PRIDE flag has no place in the classroom, it is you shoving your political ideology onto kids. 

 

But you can't muster the courtesy to refer to people as they view themselves? If some biological male wants to be a woman, or vice versa, how does that harm you? Is it a power thing? They have to see and refer to themselves as you see them rather than how they see themselves? Can't manage an alternative pronoun if it makes someone else feel more comfortable? Yes, that's a pretty good example of intolerance. If you can't tolerate the harmless little differences between individuals and groups, you are intolerant. 

My "political ideology" is tolerance. It's basic kindness. It's the core lesson in every kindergarten class, until society teaches some kids how to be cruel, and discriminate and bully (in their tiny MAGA hats, I presume).

 

Quote

The PRIDE flag is just as much about superiority here to you, you have already admitted as much, as you assert that what it stands for must be accepted or those who do not are the intolerant ones!

I already showed you what the Pro-Life flag stands for and you just fabricate things to oppose it. Nothing about it was superiority related. Where did the link I provided you say: "The pro-life (anti-choice) flag says that women should not have the right to choose whether to carry a fetus within them." It did not. You are just making this up. 

Which again, is exactly my point. You are here pushing your political views and trying to justify them and then dismissing mine. OR we just don't push our politics onto the kids... the classroom is not a soapbox for teachers or staff. 

Noooooope. You're being wildly disingenuous. Nobody anywhere is going to be persuaded that the "pro-life flag" isn't hostile to pro-choice people. There are two sides to that debate, and you know full well which side is lined up outside of reproductive medicine clinics to heckle women and shout "baby killer!" at the doctors. 

The pride flag has no such connotation. There are no throngs of gay people hectoring passersby trying to turn them gay. There's simply gay people finding the courage to be proud of who they are in an often hostile society. 

Apples and watermelons. As before, if the message of self acceptance and tolerance is a problem for you, the flag isn't the problem.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

its only one place but I grew up in Boise, idaho.. there was one "gay bar" and even then it was not exclusively gay. The gays/lesbians still had to be selective about when to go this place. 1985.. there was no internet so tell me how gays found each other in 1985 (as an example).

 

The same way they did for the 1000 years preceeding it   The same way groups of people from all over did. Do you not remember what it was like before cell phones and internet?

People formed groups and then people from that group introduced others to that group and word would spread. Sure, there were also locations where gays frequented that were known to be 'gay friendly and they sure don't have to be exclusive to allow gays to meet and socialize and pass on information about other gay orgs and rights.

People have been doing that since there's been people for all kinds of special interests or the like. Hell plenty of them organized successful rebellions against entire nations   People find like minded people and they form groups, people hear about those groups and then join if they're of a like mind

[User]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

But your response is that we should both stay out of teachers business--as long as the teachers teach the way you want them to.🙄

You just love to change up the terminology like this, to build these little strawman responses like this one. I never said we should both stay out of teachers business. Public schools exist to teach a curriculum that is controlled by the public. Of course it is our business what is happening there, we are paying for it and we are hiring those teachers. 

No, what I very specifically said was that I oppose teachers pushing their politics onto kids, and to broaden that out some, generally schools as a whole should avoid steering into choosing sides or pushing particular political view points. 

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

But you can't muster the courtesy to refer to people as they view themselves? If some biological male wants to be a woman, or vice versa, how does that harm you? Is it a power thing? They have to see and refer to themselves as you see them rather than how they see themselves? Can't manage an alternative pronoun if it makes someone else feel more comfortable? Yes, that's a pretty good example of intolerance. If you can't tolerate the harmless little differences between individuals and groups, you are intolerant. 

My "political ideology" is tolerance. It's basic kindness. It's the core lesson in every kindergarten class, until society teaches some kids how to be cruel, and discriminate and bully (in their tiny MAGA hats, I presume).

LOL, for real? You can't muster up any courtesy here to refer to Pro-Life as Pro-Life and have to bring your bigoted snide remarks about religion into discussions routinely. You don't get to preach kindness and tolerance like you are on the high ground here. You are not, nor are the views you push. 

It has nothing to do with courtesy, it has everything to do with being honest and not playing a role in some kind of fantastical delusion. 
 

A biological male can't be a woman. Has nothing to do with what they want. I am stating objective facts here. 

You have no desire to respect truth here and you are the one demanding I and others partake in these fantasies. That is not tolerance, that is you and the Pride movement and the Pride flag pushing this onto others and demanding they succumb to your political ideology, then you have the gall to pretend like you are doing all this under a banner of how tolerant you are. 

 

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Noooooope. You're being wildly disingenuous. Nobody anywhere is going to be persuaded that the "pro-life flag" isn't hostile to pro-choice people. There are two sides to that debate, and you know full well which side is lined up outside of reproductive medicine clinics to heckle women and shout "baby killer!" at the doctors. 

The pride flag has no such connotation. There are no throngs of gay people hectoring passersby trying to turn them gay. There's simply gay people finding the courage to be proud of who they are in an often hostile society. 

Apples and watermelons. As before, if the message of self acceptance and tolerance is a problem for you, the flag isn't the problem.

Yessssssssssssssssssss. For all the same reasons you sit there typing away about how obvious it is to you that the Pro-Life flag is hostile as you claim... that is exactly the same sentiment others have towards the Pride flag. 

Which again, is exactly my point. 

Then you are going to pretend like there are not thug LGBTQ mafia folks out there pushing their rhetoric in hateful ways demanding compliance? LOL, look at you in this discussion, you can't even be at peace with my pointing out simple biological facts. Oh no. 

There are folks in the LGBTQ Pride movement who are just as hateful, full of spite, and full of intolerance shoving their views onto the world. We have come a long long way from gay people just trying to live a normal life. 

As before, if the message of loving the mother and the unborn child is a problem for you, the Pro-Life flag isn't the problem, you are. See, we can both play this silly game. So much for your acceptance and tolerance. 

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, User said:

You just love to change up the terminology like this, to build these little strawman responses like this one. I never said we should both stay out of teachers business. Public schools exist to teach a curriculum that is controlled by the public. Of course it is our business what is happening there, we are paying for it and we are hiring those teachers. 

Wait a second, let's check the replay. 🙄 You said, "My point here is that neither of us should be pushing our values regarding what is or is not a healthy sexual relationship onto children outside of basics like consent, safety, and consequences."

So, like I said, you don't want to push your views on children, as long as the teachers teach your views. If they teach something else you'll be up in arms. 

Oh, what a tangled web you weave...

7 hours ago, User said:

No, what I very specifically said was that I oppose teachers pushing their politics onto kids, and to broaden that out some, generally schools as a whole should avoid steering into choosing sides or pushing particular political view points. 

LOL, for real? You can't muster up any courtesy here to refer to Pro-Life as Pro-Life and have to bring your bigoted snide remarks about religion into discussions routinely. You don't get to preach kindness and tolerance like you are on the high ground here. You are not, nor are the views you push. 

Tolerance doesn't mean that I don't have thoughts or opinions. It means I don't try to punish people for holding different opinions or force them to live according to my values. 

Whether it's Christian mythology, Greek mythology, Jewish mythology, Scientology or whatever deranged nonsense people think is true, I'm fine with it. Right up until they try to codify their fantasy into law that affects others.

That's what tolerance means. You do you, just don't force it on me.

If "pro-life" meant a personal choice not to abort, great, I support that. If it means stripping rights from others, GTFO.

7 hours ago, User said:

It has nothing to do with courtesy, it has everything to do with being honest and not playing a role in some kind of fantastical delusion. 
 

A biological male can't be a woman. Has nothing to do with what they want. I am stating objective facts here. 

Gender is and always has been a social construct. People can't change their DNA, but they can and do change the social signals they send through dress, speech, behavior, etc. 

How about this. If you see a man or woman with a toupee or hairpiece, do you refuse to play "a role in some kind of fantastical delusion"? They don't have hair, but they pretend to. Do you climb right up on your soapbox and denounce them? Shout them down for pretending? Belittle them? -- Or do you just politely let them go about their day? 

See, it is basic courtesy. People make all kinds of allowances for one another and the public faces we present. 

7 hours ago, User said:

You have no desire to respect truth here and you are the one demanding I and others partake in these fantasies. That is not tolerance, that is you and the Pride movement and the Pride flag pushing this onto others and demanding they succumb to your political ideology, then you have the gall to pretend like you are doing all this under a banner of how tolerant you are. 

 

Yessssssssssssssssssss. For all the same reasons you sit there typing away about how obvious it is to you that the Pro-Life flag is hostile as you claim... that is exactly the same sentiment others have towards the Pride flag. 

Okay, then try applying some reason to support your claim. What does "pride" in one's self take from anyone else? Is there any implication of superiority? Is there anyone on the losing side of the equation?

I saw an employee with a poster the other day that said "Autism is not a disability." By your reading, an expression of pride in his own neurodiverse identity is hostile to the neurotypical. It's a political statement, browbeating people into accepting him. Which is all pretty silly.

Just like the Pride flag, there is zero harm in that message of self worth and tolerance. But you want to make it into something ugly for the sake of politics. 

7 hours ago, User said:

Which again, is exactly my point. 

Then you are going to pretend like there are not thug LGBTQ mafia folks out there pushing their rhetoric in hateful ways demanding compliance? LOL, look at you in this discussion, you can't even be at peace with my pointing out simple biological facts. Oh no. 

There are folks in the LGBTQ Pride movement who are just as hateful, full of spite, and full of intolerance shoving their views onto the world. We have come a long long way from gay people just trying to live a normal life. 

As before, if the message of loving the mother and the unborn child is a problem for you, the Pro-Life flag isn't the problem, you are. See, we can both play this silly game. So much for your acceptance and tolerance. 

This is completely new territory. lol Gay thugs forcing "compliance" on people? Jeebus. Compliance with what? Compliance with equal rights? Compliance with not bullying gays? Compliance with live and let live? 🙄

[Deluge]

18 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

1. You are free to complain to your hearts content.. and I am free to not. See how that works?

Its not a 1st amendment violation to complain about it. Clear enough? 

2. My stance is that society should free to produce such content and the members of society should be free to like it or not. 

3. I do get the impression that you would support legislation that would ban "woke" content. 

1. Yes; that part of your message is very clear. The problem is that you keep beating that dead horse every time I speak out against woke bullshit. It's almost as if you take it personally. 

2. That's my stance too, yet you can't seem to stfu about it. Again, I think you're taking my speaking out against woke content, personally. 

3. The minute it becomes school policy or even law? You bet your ass I would. Wouldn't you? 

[User]

54 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Wait a second, let's check the replay. 🙄 You said, "My point here is that neither of us should be pushing our values regarding what is or is not a healthy sexual relationship onto children outside of basics like consent, safety, and consequences."

So, like I said, you don't want to push your views on children, as long as the teachers teach your views. If they teach something else you'll be up in arms. 

Oh, what a tangled web you weave...

At this point, I have to think you are just trying to be difficult to be difficult. 

Yes, we were talking about not pushing our values onto the students in regards to sex. It is aligned with political views there, but that is not what you said, as if I said no business getting in their business at all. 

I want teachers to focus on kids reading, science, the arts, math, history... you want to have them teaching kids how to have anal sex. You and I are worlds apart here and it is not even close how far out you are. 

57 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Tolerance doesn't mean that I don't have thoughts or opinions. It means I don't try to punish people for holding different opinions...

That's what tolerance means. You do you, just don't force it on me.

If "pro-life" meant a personal choice not to abort, great, I support that. If it means stripping rights from others, GTFO.

Except, that is exactly what you are doing here. You are demanding that "tolerance" means I must play along with your fantasies. You are trying to force that onto me.

That is not what Pro-Life means, you are conflating desired outcomes with what it means. Regardless, the point here was simply that you offer no respect or tolerance that you demand from others. 
 

 

59 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Gender is and always has been a social construct. People can't change their DNA, but they can and do change the social signals they send through dress, speech, behavior, etc. 

How about this. If you see a man or woman with a toupee or hairpiece, do you refuse to play "a role in some kind of fantastical delusion"? They don't have hair, but they pretend to. Do you climb right up on your soapbox and denounce them? Shout them down for pretending? Belittle them? -- Or do you just politely let them go about their day? 

See, it is basic courtesy. People make all kinds of allowances for one another and the public faces we present. 

Yes, how males and females behave has been a social construct to some degree, influence by biology and psychology as well. But it is how males and females behave. This is the game folks like you are trying to play and have it both ways now, trying to argue gender and sex are different so a man can pretend to be a woman... but the point is that he isn't a woman, yet you also want him to be treated as such not just in partaking in the acknowledgement of the fantasy, no, but we much allow the man to use women's facilities and beat them up in physical competition too! 

No, this is a ruse on your part, and not a very well done one. 

Are you demanding that I pretend that a toupee literally means they do in fact have hair? No, I do not nor would I go out of my way to denounce anyone, but you and others in the LGBTQ movement certainly are demanding that from the rest of us, that we must play along or we will be branded as intolerant! Hateful! How dare we!

Let me know when you figure out this basic courtesy thing for yourself. 

 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Okay, then try applying some reason to support your claim. What does "pride" in one's self take from anyone else? Is there any implication of superiority? Is there anyone on the losing side of the equation?

I saw an employee with a poster the other day that said "Autism is not a disability." By your reading, an expression of pride in his own neurodiverse identity is hostile to the neurotypical. It's a political statement, browbeating people into accepting him. Which is all pretty silly.

Just like the Pride flag, there is zero harm in that message of self worth and tolerance. But you want to make it into something ugly for the sake of politics. 

Where did I take issue with pride in one's self? 

Well, Autism is a disability. I am not being asked to pretend someone with Autism doesn't in fact have Autism. 

Just like the Pro-Life flag, there is zero ham in that message of loving both the mother and the unborn child. But you want to make it into something ugly for the sake of politics. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

This is completely new territory. lol Gay thugs forcing "compliance" on people? Jeebus. Compliance with what? Compliance with equal rights? Compliance with not bullying gays? Compliance with live and let live? 🙄

Yes. Clearly you missed out on the whole Masterpiece Cakeshop guy, who the LGBTQ mafia set out to destroy his life, trying to force him to make them a cake with a dildo among other things... that is just one pretty big example. 

Nope, folks on the left and in the LGBTQ movement couldn't tolerate or respect his beliefs, they had to force compliance and use the power of government to try to do it too. 

So, tell us, did you support using the force of government to make him use his artistic abilities to design a specially themed wedding cake for a gay wedding? 

Lets see how tolerant you are. 

[impartialobserver]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

1. Yes; that part of your message is very clear. The problem is that you keep beating that dead horse every time I speak out against woke bullshit. It's almost as if you take it personally. 

2. That's my stance too, yet you can't seem to stfu about it. Again, I think you're taking my speaking out against woke content, personally. 

3. The minute it becomes school policy or even law? You bet your ass I would. Wouldn't you? 

School policy.. maybe. However, our discussion is much more general. Should it be allowed to exist.. that is the question. I vote yes. 

However, my point in the beginning is that if you have the first amendment and the internet... the woke content is going to be created and not much you can do about it. There is a market for it. If that market does not contain you.. that means nothing. My friend owns a record store and guess what genre he sells the most of? Rap/ Hip-hop. Is he a fan of it? No. Am I? No again. Him and I not being a fan does not change this. 

Edited May 1 by impartialobserver

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, User said:

So, tell us, did you support using the force of government to make him use his artistic abilities to design a specially themed wedding cake for a gay wedding? 

There's a precedent for this though.  We have laws against discrimination in public services.

 

It's tricky, and threading the needle is required here for sure.

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

School policy.. maybe. However, our discussion is much more general. Should it be allowed to exist.. that is the question. I vote yes. 

However, my point in the beginning is that if you have the first amendment and the internet... the woke content is going to be created and not much you can do about it. There is a market for it. If that market does not contain you.. that means nothing. My friend owns a record store and guess what genre he sells the most of? Rap/ Hip-hop. Is he a fan of it? No. Am I? No again. Him and I not being a fan does not change this. 

I vote yes too, but with limitations - the same kind of limitations that are put on Christianity.

No prayer, Ten Commandments, and pictures of Jesus in schools? Fine. No pride flags, CRT, and homosexual literature in schools either. 

[impartialobserver]

14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I vote yes too, but with limitations - the same kind of limitations that are put on Christianity.

No prayer, Ten Commandments, and pictures of Jesus in schools? Fine. No pride flags, CRT, and homosexual literature in schools either. 

I could be in support of no pride flags or homosexual literature. As for CRT.. folks would interpret that as any mention of blacks being mistreated in the past as CRT. It is simple historical fact that we had slavery, jim crow laws, the KKK, and such. An example would be someone demanding that a mural at my kids school of MLK be taken down because it was CRT. Except that the mural dates from 1985 and there is no undue focus on it. Its one data point in the history of the US

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I could be in support of

1)no pride flags

2) or homosexual literature.  

1. The basis for making such a decision would be solely if it was popular. 

I would guess that in many jurisdictions, it's not.

2. As in... Truman Capote? Tennessee Williams?

[impartialobserver]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. The basis for making such a decision would be solely if it was popular. 

I would guess that in many jurisdictions, it's not.

2. As in... Truman Capote? Tennessee Williams?

I have zero problem with LGBTQ stuff but as a form of compromise.. I think it works. As for if the author is gay.. that would not qualify as LGTBQ literature

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I have zero problem with LGBTQ stuff but as a form of compromise.. I think it works. As for if the author is gay.. that would not qualify as LGTBQ literature

Compromise for what?  This is a wave of manipulated protest IMO... And it will fade... Just like Boot Camps and other social fads...

[Deluge]

51 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I could be in support of no pride flags or homosexual literature. As for CRT.. folks would interpret that as any mention of blacks being mistreated in the past as CRT. It is simple historical fact that we had slavery, jim crow laws, the KKK, and such. An example would be someone demanding that a mural at my kids school of MLK be taken down because it was CRT. Except that the mural dates from 1985 and there is no undue focus on it. Its one data point in the history of the US

Kids already know the history of slavery in this country through standard texts. Let's not beat white kids over the heads with extra shit.  

Edited May 1 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I have zero problem with LGBTQ stuff but as a form of compromise.. I think it works. As for if the author is gay.. that would not qualify as LGTBQ literature

Here is the problem with lgbtq flags or special days or any other "Stuff". It breeds hatred and exclusion.

Whenever you set one group aside as being special and suggest that all other groups must acknowledge this and bow down before them, you create major problems. The other groups always feel second class and begin to resent the group being privileged. Unless you also have heterosexual day and christian day and Muslim day and so on and so forth then people get angry.

At the end of the day you cannot unite people by dividing them. You can have things like family day where all people of every type of family be it traditional or single parent or lgbq parent or whatever are all celebrated equally. That's inclusive. But once you start saying oh we fly a special flag for these people because they're special then you are going to breed hatred and bigotry. And that is not what we should be doing

 

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Compromise for what?  This is a wave of manipulated protest IMO... And it will fade... Just like Boot Camps and other social fads...

well then why not ignore the gays and the trans? They'll just fade.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

well then why not ignore the gays and the trans? They'll just fade.

I backed up my case with an example...boot camps... or The Tea Party is another...

They last as long as it takes for political strategists to come up with new ideas.

[impartialobserver]

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Kids already know the history of slavery in this country through standard texts. Let's not beat white kids over the heads with it.  

I learned about it in 4th grade and am white.. was I beaten over the head with it. My point is that any mention of any kind of any length could be construed as CRT. When I learned about it in 4th grade ( and I am as white as white gets).. I did not feel any kind of shame. Bad stuff happened.. and I was not the perpetrator. folks can learn about atrocities and such and not have it be some form of virtual signaling. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

. folks can learn about atrocities and such and not have it be some form of virtual signaling. 

Or you can ignore trolls.  ⁰

[impartialobserver]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Here is the problem with lgbtq flags or special days or any other "Stuff". It breeds hatred and exclusion.

Whenever you set one group aside as being special and suggest that all other groups must acknowledge this and bow down before them, you create major problems. The other groups always feel second class and begin to resent the group being privileged. Unless you also have heterosexual day and christian day and Muslim day and so on and so forth then people get angry.

At the end of the day you cannot unite people by dividing them. You can have things like family day where all people of every type of family be it traditional or single parent or lgbq parent or whatever are all celebrated equally. That's inclusive. But once you start saying oh we fly a special flag for these people because they're special then you are going to breed hatred and bigotry. And that is not what we should be doing

 

well then why not ignore the gays and the trans? They'll just fade.

You really should my posts more carefully. this post ^^^ is based on the idea that I support flying a pride flag. Now.. read carefully again. I would support having no pride flags as a form of compromise with Deluge. His ideas would be a valid compromise. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I could be in support of no pride flags or homosexual literature. As for CRT.. folks would interpret that as any mention of blacks being mistreated in the past as CRT. It is simple historical fact that we had slavery, jim crow laws, the KKK, and such. An example would be someone demanding that a mural at my kids school of MLK be taken down because it was CRT. Except that the mural dates from 1985 and there is no undue focus on it. Its one data point in the history of the US

What about heterosexual literature? Probably best to just avoid anything with human relationships. 

Orrrr, we could go the other way and allow the full spectrum of human relationships, because that's the world we live in.