What Do Gadsden Flags and Pride Flags Have in Common?
Sexual minorities aren't the only ones who love to wave identity flags.

The June forecast calls for plenty of rainbows, regardless of the actual weather. Once a small and highly political gesture of defiance against a government and culture that refused to grant gay and transgender people the same rights and respect as other citizens, Pride Month has become a big, heavily branded celebration of anything connected to any gender or sexual orientation that isn't conventionally heteronormative.
Some of the rainbow branding veers into the absurd: electric toothbrushes, bottles of wine, CBD oils, hamburgers. Skittles, already rainbow-colored, hilariously decided during 2020's Pride Month to eliminate all its colors and sell specialty packs full of pale gray candies with the motto, "Only one rainbow matters during Pride."
That motto isn't really accurate: There are dozens of different rainbows now. The past few years have seen an explosion of colorful flags allowing ever-more-specific labels for spots on the gender and sexuality spectrums. There are specific flags for lesbians, pansexuals, trans people, asexuals, nonbinary people, kinky people, and more. If you drill down further, you'll find flags marketed to masculine or feminine lesbians, to specific types of gay men, or to various kink interests. There is more than one flag for asexuals. The familiar rainbow flag itself was revisualized in 2018 to become what's called the Progress Pride Flag, with additional colors that represent more specific minorities, though the classic version still persists too.
All the marketing reflects the fact that most of America now embraces gay rights. But the past eight years have also brought a socially conservative backlash. There is a loud and concerted effort to push all these rainbow flags (and the ideas they represent) out of schools, libraries, and the public square.
Sexual minorities aren't the only ones who love to wave identity flags. At the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, U.S. flags were in abundance, but so were Confederate flags and Gadsden flags, among others.
In times of war, sales of national flags skyrocket amid public shows of patriotism and unity: They are demonstrations of belonging, of identifying with one's home. The culture war has brought flag waving of a different kind—not of nations, but of identities and ideologies. As part of that culture war, participants are attempting to use the government to control which flags are permitted to fly.
In Florida, a father is suing to compel his school district to remove rainbow flags and other pride imagery from his son's classroom because he has religious objections to teaching about LGBT issues in schools. On the other end of the spectrum, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2014 ordered the United States Postal Service to investigate whether an image of the Gadsden flag, with its "don't tread on me" motto, on a worker's cap could be evidence of a discriminatory work environment—not because the flag itself stands for racism, but because sometimes white supremacists wave the flag while engaging in racist activities.
At the most basic level, all these flags say, "I am here," and sometimes, that is itself an act of defiance against state repression. More broadly, these banners represent constituencies trying to influence the government and culture. We should defend their right to wave a flag in the same spirit that we defend their right to speak, even when that flag says something we object to.
These Colors Don't Run
Gov. Ron DeSantis helped stoke this culture war with laws meant to control how race, gender, and sexual orientation are discussed in schools. In 2022, the Florida Republican fostered two headline-grabbing bills—one commonly called the Stop WOKE Act, which limited how schools and workplaces could teach about systemic racism, and the Parental Rights in Education Act (nicknamed the "Don't Say Gay" law by opponents), which limits how educators can talk about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Both laws now face legal challenges arguing they violate the First Amendment. But a completely different law, a "Parents' Bill of Rights" passed in 2021, started a flag-related controversy. Francisco Deliu of Wellington, Florida, invoked that law when suing The School District of Palm Beach County over what his 12-year-old son was experiencing at Emerald Cove Middle School. This law gives a parent the right to "direct the education and care of his or her minor child," the right to shape the child's religious training, and the right to pursue alternative forms of education, such as a private school, a charter school, or homeschooling.
That sounds very reasonable on paper, but what does it mean in practice? Deliu's lawsuit, filed in October, claims a computer science teacher hung up two rainbow flags in the classroom, used a search engine in class to find "websites about homosexual lifestyles," and "proselytized to students in class." The nature of this proselytizing is not detailed, but Deliu wants it to stop—and he wants the flags removed. He also claims to have sent the school a "straight pride" flag and to have demanded that it also be put up; the school, he says, did not respond.
In January, the district asked a judge to throw the case out. The school board's lawyer argued that a parent's rights are not infringed when a child is merely exposed to an opinion that is contrary to the family's religious values: "It would be virtually impossible for a public school system to have a curriculum and discussion in the classroom every day that was perfectly consistent with the moral or religious beliefs of every single student and their family."
For Deliu, who describes himself as a libertarian in the lawsuit, the rainbow flag represents the state's encroachment upon his family. That would be a surprise to the first generation to wave that flag; gays and lesbians have had to fight for decades to convince governments to recognize their right to live as they choose and to create their own families. To many, the flag represents the same thing Deliu demands: self-determination.
That's one of the challenges of flags. People's interpretations of a banner can vary widely, depending on whether they think the flag represents or excludes them.
The Miscreant's Veto
In 2014, Jerad and Amanda Miller barged into a Las Vegas pizza parlor with guns, shouting, "This is a revolution!" They killed two police officers, then draped two flags over one of the bodies—a Gadsden flag and a flag bearing a swastika. The EEOC referenced that event when it decided the U.S. Postal Service should investigate whether a white employee's Gadsden cap meant a black employee was being subjected to racial harassment.
The complainant insisted the flag was racist because it was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a wealthy slaveholder from South Carolina. But its original meaning had nothing to do with slavery: Gadsden had designed it for naval and military use during the American Revolution. So the Postal Service dismissed the employee's complaint.
The flag and its motto have struck a chord with a large number of Americans who place a high value on individual liberty, the vast majority of whom have little in common with the Millers. But some racists do wave the Gadsden flag, and the EEOC decided it was possible that the worker wearing the hat was one of them.
To be clear, the agency wasn't ruling that the employee definitely was racist; it was telling the Postal Service to investigate the possibility. Still, the case raised the possibility that a flag's meaning, and the legal repercussions of that meaning, could be determined by its worst uses. Call it the miscreant's veto.
Years after the EEOC's order, the Gadsden flag's appearance at the Capitol riot raised the question: Who is the "me" in "Don't Tread on Me"? The answer, again, depends on who is hoisting the flag. Some Americans clearly care only about government authority when it threatens their own liberty or the liberty of people like them, with no concern for the use of police power against immigrants, the homeless, or people whose ideologies do not match theirs. One Amazon vendor offers a two-pack that includes both the Gadsden flag and a Thin Blue Line flag, a banner that represents support for the police—and, by one widespread interpretation, for aggressive police enforcement.
Just as the market provides for a colorful parade of different pride flags, there are all sorts of variations of the Gadsden flag that more clearly delineate what "Don't Tread on Me" actually means to the person waving it. Yes, there's even a rainbow Gadsden flag (several variations of them, in fact). For those who want to make it clear that they really do have a broad view of liberty, there are flags that say "Don't Tread on Anyone," some with the familiar snake and some with a porcupine, a mascot associated with the Libertarian Party.
Identity Weapons
You won't find the traditional Gadsden flag at Flags For Good, a shop launched in 2020 by vexillologist Michael Green. But you will find a variation where the "Don't Tread on Me" motto appears not with a rattlesnake, but with a uterus.
Green has been interested in flags since childhood. He traveled a lot as a kid, and he says recognizing different flags helped him "create a sense of place" during his journeys. When he grew up, he studied graphic design, which made his love of flags even stronger. "It's the simplest form of design, but we have deep emotional connections to these simple designs," he tells Reason.
"Flags can be good as identity markers," Green says. "They can help you find your tribe." But they can also tell you that you don't belong. Which side of the thin blue line are you on? Does anybody care if you're the one being trodden upon? So Green decided to create a shop that "only sold flags that promoted inclusion and expression of people's identity" without anything he sees as signaling exclusion. So there are no Confederate flags and no Thin Blue Line flags. (His lack of traditional Gadsden flags doesn't stem from this ethos, he says, but from his sense that the market is already saturated with them.)
Green brought up flags' oppressive authoritarian potential in a TEDx talk in 2019. He noted that Georgia didn't incorporate Confederate iconography into its state flag until 1956, a gesture of defiance against federally mandated school desegregation that alienated black Georgians. In Nazi Germany, he notes, Jewish citizens were banned in 1935 from flying German flags: "And in this way, the Germans, more than any other time in history, used the dual power of flags to both unite but also to divide. Flags were used as identity weapons."
Fortunately, few in the U.S. are using flags as symbols for a murderous purge of the out-group. More often, they use them to represent political constituencies. The more flags any particular group is able to bring to bear, the less likely a politician is to ignore them.
Many identity flags are kin to the Gadsden flag. "We're gay, don't tread on us." "We're black, don't tread on us." "We're Southern, don't tread on us." "We're police, don't tread on us." Green notes that the Gadsden flag rebels against one of the five fundamental rules that vexillologists say make for good banners: It has text on it. Yet one reason the flag thrives is exactly because it violates this rule. The slogan resonates, perhaps because it says aloud what other flags leave as subtext: Let me live my life, or I will fight back.
Don't Tread on Me Either
A new identity flag dropped last November: More than 30,000 polyamorists voted on a new pride design.
Jim Evans, a musician turned software engineer, had designed an earlier polyamory flag back in 1995: three wide horizontal stripes, blue, red, and black, with a yellow Greek pi symbol to represent the first letter in the word polyamory. As the internet grew and polyamorous people were better able to communicate with each other, a truth became clear: Most of them thought the thing was absolutely hideous. Evans didn't disagree. In a 2016 blog post, he explained that its design had been limited both by his skills and by the tools he had available at the time.
In 2021, a group of volunteers formed an organization called PolyamProud to see if they could design a flag the community would rally around. Through a ranked-choice voting process last fall, participants settled on horizontal bars of blue, magenta, and purple with an asymmetrical white triangle and a golden heart inside.
Flags For Good offers this new polyamory flag. Other polyamory flag designs are available online as well. Appropriately, you don't have to commit to just one of them.
Those who practice polyamory are still very much part of the out-group in America. When Congress passed a bill last year to enshrine federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages, the bill needed to be amended to clarify that polygamous relationships were not covered before enough Republican senators would support it.
"I think initially [a polyamory pride flag] was to help polyamorists find each other," says PolyamProud Director Kristian Einstman. "Now that's still part of it, but it's more to help the rest of the world see how big and present of a community this is." Because their families are not recognized by any of the states or the federal government, polyamorous unions face challenges whenever dealing with the courts or schools. (In some states, they even risk criminal charges.)
"People who have a presence on social media with polyamorous families are subject to all manner of hate speech and degradation, with or without a flag," Einstman says. "It begets an equal and opposite reaction. The more hate we receive, the more likely we are to take up the flag."
Maybe polyamory will enter the American mainstream, and maybe it won't. But the more common the flag is, the more visible the community will be—and that, Einstman hopes, will give the movement a boost.
So it is with every movement that adopts a banner: The flags represent an aspiration for influence, even as those who wield them hope to avoid being trampled underfoot. No wonder they're so visible in the culture wars.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don't understand why people have 'pride' in who they sleep with. Unless it's Jennifer Lawrence.
I am making a good salary from home $1500-$2500/week , which is amazing, undera year earlier I was jobless in a horrible economy. I offer thanks toward Godeach day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay itforward and share it with Everyone, Here is website where i startedthis……………..
.
.
EARN THIS LINK—————————————➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
It's because their whole identity is their sex. They are a one trick pony.
It's like when Ellen came out. Her sitcom at the time went from mildly amusing to the whole show was only about being queer.
One trick ponies get boring quickly. Just like the Alphabet people have become.
That's very true. I don't introduce myself as "Hey, I'm sarc. I'm heterosexual and prefer he/him pronouns" because I keep my personal life personal. They don't. They introduced themselves with their sexuality and pronouns, and keep it front and center in all interactions. And if you ask them to keep their personal lives personal, you're the bad guy.
You keep you personal life personal? Since when?
He keeps it as personal as the ham in a Cuban sandwich.
ROFL, I was gonna say, tell us again about how you want to feed horse meat to your "cunt" wife who got custody of your kids in the divorce, sarcasmic.
Giving their pronouns in an introduction is useful if they're also going to take any failure to use those pronouns as a low-grade hate crime.
I don't entirely get it since I very rarely use any pronoun other than "you" when interacting directly with someone, and I've yet to see anyone choosing to go by an alternative second-person pronoun.
Adding in how they "identify" seems a bit narcissistic, but in the current US culture, especially among the "woke", mild narcissism is as close as many of them can get to genuine empathy; the irony (in the actual definiton of the word) is that those are the people who frequently claim the most loudly to hold to the only truly empathic world-view while filtering everything through their identity.
The more often they begin a declarative statement with "As a...", the less it matters what the next 4-5 words are; whether it's "hetero white cis male" or "blind Melanesian bisexual trans-woman", you're dealing with someone whose filter is fundamentally racist/sexist/whateverist 90+% of the time. Whether they're "bigoted" or "woke", they're looking at the world as if everyone is some collection of adjectives before they're human, and probably think that "identity" does or should define the person in their entirety.
I got in trouble at this job a while back. One of the cooks was this bull-dyke who spent all her shifts talking about her sexual conquests. I was as thrilled to hear about it as I would have been to hear about some frat-boy's exploits, as in not at all. A month or so into the job one of the guys asks me how I liked working there. I said "It's pretty cool except for having to listen to the lesbian midget." She stepped out from her hiding place behind a five-foot tall cooler and said "Gotcha!" Minutes later I'm called into the office. They say I called her a dyke. I said "No, I called her a lesbian midget. She's four and a half feet tall and likes women. I thought it was a statement of fact." They kicked me out of the office so I wouldn't see them laugh. Didn't get fired. She never shut up. A year after I quit Guy Fieri showed up and put the place on Triple-D.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
Immediately goes into a story of his after declaring he keeps his personal life personal. Amazing.
If he wasn't such a worthless piece of shit you'd almost feel bad for him.
Thanks and a hat tip to Sarcasmic for baiting the whack-job Orange-Outman lewsers. I was able to scan and clam Naguno with hardly any effort. Mooting mystical bigot vandalism makes the page more Reasony and less Landover Baptisty or Army of Gody. Thanks to the Mute Lewser feature libertarians may gradually reclaim Reason.
Yup. And today one can see two types of gay people. Those who just live their lives, get married, sometimes adopt kids, and that's it. Then the other kind who have to make a point of their being gay to everyone they meet. And like vegans, you never have to ask, they will tell you.
Like how when gay went mainstream the previously offensive "queer" suddenly became their label.
Yeah I watched Ellen back then and I continued to watch for a while after she/the character came out. The reaction was generally positive and I think the producers misjudged their audience. Instead of being a sitcom with a gay character, of which there were several, it became a lesbian sitcom. I bailed out when it became obvious that the writers were not going to return to a comedy of interest to non lesbians.
I also watched that show both before and after the coming out. I can't speak with any authority on behalf of lesbians, but the writing went so one-note that I'm not sure that a lot of them could have held any interest in it for long either. The novelty of "representation" seems like it'd have to wear off at some point, and without that all that was left was a show about a character coming to terms with figuring how to eat/sleep/walk/stand/sit/watever "as a lesbian" when the reality is that none of those things have any meaningful tie to one's orientation (hoping that term is still allowed to be used in this context?)
Shameful. Have you heard her speak?
I don't need her to *speak*.
Who wouldn't be proud of being the first ever female action star. God, the insufferable ignorance and self-importance of that twat.
Yep.
https://movieweb.com/female-action-stars-jennifer-lawrence/
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
.
.
.
Just open the link—————————>> http://www.pay.hiring9.com
It's actually quite simple: when you feel - usually with plenty of factual support - that society wants to eliminate you and what you represent, you can react with, "You shouldn't do that" (weak) or "Don't tread on me because I will fight back!" (strong) When Rommel called the Brits "desert rats" in North Africa, instead of bristling at the insult, they rolled with it and adopted the epithet with "pride!" It's not about pride in whom you have sex with - it's not accepting the judgement of others against you, whatever the cause.
It’s not about pride in whom you have sex with
Then the term "gay pride" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It made some sense in the past when there was a lot of social stigma around being gay. The weird thing is that now, when pretty much no one gives a shit if you are gay, all of a sudden gay pride has to be even more intense and in your face than ever. Seems like a lot of it is activists desperate to stay relevant after they got everything they asked for.
I agree with most of your response except for...
It made some sense in the past when there was a lot of social stigma around being gay.
...as it didn't even make sense then, at least if one accepts that that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Things you had no say in are not something to take pride in, just as they're not a reason for shame. It makes no more sense to take pride in who one is sexually attracted to than it does to take pride in being born with blue eyes.
Except that faggots have never been killed in the United States and the extent of their "persecution" was that they weren't allowed to fuck children or get married. Since they've been allowed to fuck children and get married for a decade now and had complete social acceptance for half a century prior to that you can take your faggot gaslighting and shove it so far up your ass it tickles your gerbil.
Are you a damned liar, or born yesterday and failed to learn any history? In my lifetime, gays have been
Beaten by cops.
Beaten by random men.
Dishonorably discharged by the military.
Excluded from most government jobs.
"Treated" with chemical castration.
Driven to suicide.
Most of the persecution ended 20 to 30 years ago, but it's not forgotten.
Money making home based work to start earning every day more than $600 simplydoing copy and paste work online. Previous month imade $18320 from this job andi gave this only 2 hrs from my whole busy day. Very simple to do work andregular earning from this are much better than other regular 9 to 5 jobs. Go tothis site right now for more info.
.
.
HERE ————->> http://Www.pay.hiring9.Com
Fantastic article, Scott !
And at a very appreciate time !
LOL^
Damn, Reason testing out the AI bot to see if they can get the positive comments up?
It’s Mike.
What's the difference?
A bot would most likely be less obnoxious and deliberately mendacious.
hpearce has been around for quite a while, so it is more likely a smart phone auto-complete fail.
“For Deliu, who describes himself as a libertarian in the lawsuit, the rainbow flag represents the state’s encroachment upon his family. That would be a surprise to the first generation to wave that flag; gays and lesbians have had to fight for decades to convince governments to recognize their right to live as they choose and to create their own families.”
If you go into a public school these days, you will find that rainbow flags are festooned everywhere. Rather than being an outcast group, LGBT ideology is the creed of the education establishment. Pride flags are, arguably, an expression of the teacher’s religious beliefs. Would Shackford be so sanguine about a teacher prominently displaying a crucifix or the Ten Commandments, apropos of nothing as regards to subject matter being taught in the class?
Or even just a regular Gadsden Flag?
Does not work as well as the Pride flags represent a particular belief system that is, at least, quasi-religious in nature.
I see your point. I was mostly thinking of how a Gadsden flag, even posted in a history classroom, would probably get screeched off the wall.
If you walk into any science classroom you will find periodic tables and pictures of Einstein everywhere. Is science now a "quasi-religion"? Should periodic tables be banned?
You can't just declare something to be a religion in order to both-sides an argument.
What do you think “apropos of nothing as regards to subject matter being taught in the class?” means?
Pride flags are symbolic of a belief system which runs counter to many religions teachings on sexual morality, it has a dogma, it has heretics and apostates, it even has an informal Inquisition. To say it is not a religious creed is to engage in sophistry.
Do you think students are learning about the Theory of Relativity in 10th grade Earth Science class? So what's the deal with all the Einstein posters? Hmm?
Yes. I learned about it in middle school in simplified discussions. Sorry your liberal school system sucked.
Do bears learn about these in 10th grade? Do they learn in trunks?
Yeah, dude. A picture of an important and universally appreciated scientist is just like putting up the symbol of a divisive social movement that is actively controversial at the moment. It's a political statement and it is inappropriate for schools or individual teachers to publicly take sides in a political debate like that.
What Einstein posters? I've never seen a class with more than a US flag in it. You sure like to pull shit out of your ass.
I know you're trying to create a moral or intellectual equivalence with the pride flag and pictures of Einstein, but it's failing terribly. If you can't see the difference between the concepts, it's either you're too ignorant to be discussing the matter or purposefully avoiding the obvious to maintain a contrarian positon.
Do you think students are learning about the Theory of Relativity in 10th grade Earth Science class? So what’s the deal with all the Einstein posters? Hmm?
My early high school science curriculum at least touched on the subjects (there are two different Einsteinian theories of relativity, BTW...not one "the" theory). Even ignoring that, asserting that homage to history's most famous scientist is somehow not apropos to the general subject of science...at any level...is so stupid as to beggar belief.
Well, the General theory contains Special relativity.
Well, the General theory contains Special relativity.
That's not accurate in that it implies that the latter is a subset of the former. It isn't. The two theories are interrelated, but one is not "contained" within the other.
And the larger point is that Pride Month is not a religion at least as is used in a First Amendment context. There is no belief in a supernatural being, no theories about an afterlife, etc. Not every set of beliefs is a religion.
Gays are the supernatural beings. The way gay is played up in schools, if kids feel attracted to the opposite sex they start to question their gender, thinking if they were the opposite gender then they'd be gay and accepted.
It's funny because poor sarcasmic can't even be sarcastic accidentally.
Explain 2 spirited or the undefined gender that had no scientific basis.
When you have to resort to literalism in order to avoid the point being made, you kind of tip your hand.
I know you're a lardass Canadian who lives with his mother in the greater Toronto area, cytotoxic, but here in the United States atheism is legally recognized as a religion. You don't have to believe in a god to have a religion or religious practice.
Pride flags are symbolic of a belief system which runs counter to many religions teachings on sexual morality, it has a dogma, it has heretics and apostates, it even has an informal Inquisition.
And the indication that it's limited to just contravening religious teachings or just teachings on sexual morality is being exceedingly generous.
What 'belief system' do periodic tables represent?
They're a listing of elements.
That's like saying 'they display the alphabet. why can't we display the rainbow flag?'
One is part of learning to read and write. And one is about who you like to fuck. Which one, jeff, do you think in appropriate for 6 year olds?
Further, while young children aren't taught Einstein's theory of relativity, they are taught ABOUT Einstein's theory of relativity. Having a poster of him in a science class or other classroom is, again, NOT an espousal of a belief system.
Lastly, a religion does not need to focus on a god or an afterlife to be a religion. It is a dogmatic belief system containing ritualized behaviors and the idea that one is serving a greater good.
Pride is a 'religious' observance. The rainbow flag is the equivalent of the flag of any faith.
"What ‘belief system’ do periodic tables represent?
They’re a listing of elements.
That’s like saying ‘they display the alphabet. why can’t we display the rainbow flag?’"
It was clearly a massive fail and a misunderstanding of how analogy works. Poor Jeff
Another bears in trunks moment?
Tou sure you want to ask Jeff if it's appropriate to talk about sex with 6 year olds?
"Pride is a ‘religious’ observance. The rainbow flag is the equivalent of the flag of any faith."
Also, now that the "T's" have taken the front and center position, it is absolutely a religion.
There is no idea in any religion that can't be adopted by the state if they have gotten on board with "if a man says he is a woman, he is, end of story" and "a woman or man has no meaning other than whatever lore an individual creates in their own head" .
If transgenderism is accepted and sanctioned by the state, why the hell cant transubstantiation be as well?
I found myself at odds with the church over a bunch of non-sensical ideas that didn't match up with rational thought, and I thought we had an agreement as a society that those sorts of things are best left to parents to teach kids outside of the classroom, not sanctioned by govt schools.
What ‘belief system’ do periodic tables represent?
They’re a listing of elements.
Well, one with a sincere religious objection might argue that the periodic table just represents one set of *beliefs* about the composition of matter. There are many competing belief systems about there. For example, a believe that matter is composed of earth, air, fire and water. Who is to say which belief is correct, really? You don't want to be intolerant towards those with other views, do you?
One is part of learning to read and write. And one is about who you like to fuck. Which one, jeff, do you think in appropriate for 6 year olds?
Can we put this nonsense to bed once and for all? Sexual orientation is not about who you fuck, it's about who you LOVE. And in the context of Pride, it is about one's inner identity, the freedom to be someone who is different than the heterosexual norm. So no I don't think talking to 6 year olds about fucking is appropriate, but that is a red herring anyway.
Lastly, a religion does not need to focus on a god or an afterlife to be a religion. It is a dogmatic belief system containing ritualized behaviors and the idea that one is serving a greater good.
Fine, then by your definition, science is a religion.
a dogmatic belief system
scientific laws and theories
containing ritualized behaviors
the scientific method
and the idea that one is serving a greater good.
the creation of new knowledge to benefit all mankind.
So, let's ban science from the classroom! What do you think?
Furthermore, according to Florida's law:
This law gives a parent the right to "direct the education and care of his or her minor child," the right to shape the child's religious training, and the right to pursue alternative forms of education, such as a private school, a charter school, or homeschooling.
why couldn't a person with a sincere religious objection to the periodic table demand that it be removed from the classroom, just like pride flags?
You can ask that about literally anything. Are you trying to argue that absolutely nothing is inappropriate to hang on a classroom wall?
Jeff compares transgenderism to alchemy without realizing he is doing so. Both a belief you can change the scientific properties of something into something else.
Fucking hilarious.
I think you are becoming more unhinged by the day.
You sound like a young-earth creationist, Jeffy.
Well, one with a sincere religious objection might argue that the periodic table just represents one set of *beliefs* about the composition of matter. There are many competing belief systems about there. For example, a believe that matter is composed of earth, air, fire and water. Who is to say which belief is correct, really? You don’t want to be intolerant towards those with other views, do you?
The fuck are you on? The periodic table of elements is not a belief system. There are no "competing belief systems". It is directly observed scientific fact. There are scanning tunneling microscopes that can be used to observe individual atoms (in certain contexts, especially lattices). Who is to say it's correct? The microscope which anyone can look at says its correct. Brownian Motion proves, mathematically, that it is correct. I do want to be intolerant of other views and theories because those views and theories are unequivocally wrong.
The dude is grasping terribly to try and be contrarian and uphold his desired narrative.
"Sexual orientation is not about who you fuck, it’s about who you LOVE."
Sexual orientation is about what type of person you are sexually attracted to. Sexual attraction does not mean "love", it can be associated, but they are not synonymous.
Sexual orientation is not about who you fuck, it’s about who you LOVE.
No, it's about who you are sexually attracted to.
Which may or may not involve actual sexual intercourse.
I am just dismayed at the number of people around here who think that even mentioning to kids that yes, sometimes two men might fall in love, that it is no different than a discussion with little kids about graphic anal sex.
Why is it that it's okay to read to kids fairy tales about a prince and princess falling in love, and nobody screams "OMG YOU'RE TEACHING KIDS ABOUT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE"?
It is this complete double standard which is the problem here. That is why Pride month exists. So that, eventually, it will be okay to read to kids fairy tales about two princes falling in love, and nobody loses their shit and screams "OMG YOU'RE TEACHING KIDS ABOUT ANAL SEX".
I agree that there is nothing wrong with kids knowing gay people exist. It's still not something that belongs in public school curriculum. And I don't trust public schools at all not to cross the line from information about human relationships to political indoctrination.
This is a straw man position. Why do you have to be so disingenuous? Seriously, there is minimal issue in this country with kids understanding and being told that there are gay people. There hasn’t been an issue with that for a long time.
The problem is when people like you take the benign concepts of attraction and use that as the vehicle to move into much more divisive and controversial situations. It’s basically motte and bailey positioning. Books that show graphic depictions of gay sex are placed into children’s libraries and when they garner a negative response, your position is to say, “how dare you not accept that gay people exist?” It’s a false attribution and completely dishonest.
The better response is how dare people like you use gay people as a shield against backlash for your weird sexual demands of children?
I guess I am going to have to start my own dossier, because I have had several commenters here tell me in the past that yes, even telling kids that "it's okay that gay people exist" is absolutely unacceptable and should be kept out of the public school classroom. So no it is not a strawman argument.
Ask Mike Parsons or anyone else here what they mean by the vague term "sexualizing kids". To some it means "treating kids as sex objects", yes. But to others it means "exposing kids to sexual orientation topics that I don't agree with". That is part of the problem here. The discourse is full of these vague umbrella terms about which there is considerable disagreement on the particulars.
Both you and Nardz might both agree that it is wrong to "sexualize kids", but you might think that means "don't teach kids about sexual intercourse", but Nardz might mean "don't teach kids that gay people exist".
Fair enough, but how can you righteously lecture and accuse people of taking particular positions when you admit you don’t even understand their positions?
Because, in fairness, I have never seen a commenter here state that it is wrong for a teacher to tell kids that someone is gay, to simply explain what that is, or to teach about sexual intercourse as a biological act. The problem that, I believe, most here and in general have when they refer to sexualizing the kids is to go beyond basic explanations. I’ll give examples:
It’s one thing to discuss sexual intercourse and the consequences of that intercourse, it’s a whole different thing to talk with kids about their desires and to discuss methods, positions, toys, all different ways of performing sexual activities, and to give them tools and tips for methods of experimenting and engaging in sexual activities.
It’s one thing to explain that there are gay people in the world and that they are attracted to the same sex, and it’s another to ask kids how they identify, if they feel like they are are a different sex, if they want to discuss their sexual identities, to discuss trans and gender fluid concepts and see if they apply to the kids, to celebrate particular people for their sexuality, to bring in adults that dress both provocatively and act provocatively to read to kids, and so forth.
A lot of the problem is we went from a society that had a good understanding of what it meant to teach kids about sex and relationships to a point where people now seem to not understand why showing elementary students how to use a butt plug is wrong.
So, it gets irritating when there is a fairly universal understanding of what kids should be exposed to and what they shouldn’t be exposed to; yet, when someone wants to go beyond that, people then get angry about the backlash by claiming the “you don’t want kids to know about gay people” canard.
The people seeking to inappropriately expand what is okay to do with kids are also the people who continually frame the argument disingenuously. And that in-and-of itself is alarming as it looks to be a deflective tactic. Thus, why people get fired up when you employ what appears to be the same tactic.
cytotoxic knows all of that, he's just lying because he's a fat piece of shit liar.
No, you have not. Not even one single fucking time, which is why you can't produce an example. You're a lying piece of shit, cytotoxic.
The problem is that when you are pressed for clarification on the particulars you come out looking like even more of a pedophile than you did before. You want children to have access to books that feature cartoon illustrations of a child performing oral sex on an adult, cytotoxic. So by all means, let's get real specific. Now some of the people who were appalled to learn that a book featuring cartoon illustrations of a child performing oral sex on an adult have furthermore decided that until that issue is resolved, maybe it would be better if public school teachers did not discuss sexual topics at all with children below a certain grade level. And that's also not repressive or wrong. Discussing sex with 5 year olds is not appropriate in almost any context, cytotoxic.
Nardz has never said anything of the kind, cytotoxic. You are a lying piece of shit. This is a lie. You, on the other hand, are on record fully supporting a book featuring cartoon illustrations of a child performing oral sex on an adult being accessible to children as young as 5 years old in public school libraries. To the extent that either position is "extreme", the one that is "extreme" on the side of not exposing children to pornography and sexual grooming is the better "extreme" to be on.
Mostly because those fairytales don't have cartoon illustrations of a child sucking a grown man's cock and also don't discuss the mechanics of how the prince and the princess have sex together, while the pedo porn you want kept in classrooms does.
Maybe they should teach advanced calculus to 6 year olds too, Jeff.
How bout we hold off on sexual orientation at least until they’re ready for calculus, hmmm?
Sometimes it's fun to get your claws out and just rip someone to bloody gobbets of flesh.
For example, a believe that matter is composed of earth, air, fire and water. Who is to say which belief is correct, really? You don’t want to be intolerant towards those with other views, do you?
Each element in the periodic table is defined under this system as being of air, earth, fire or water. They are compatible.
Can we put this nonsense to bed once and for all? Sexual orientation is not about who you fuck, it’s about who you LOVE.
It's about who you fuck. The parade of dildos should give you a clue.
Who you love is irrelevant.
scientific laws and theories
Which are famously being revised constantly (only someone who is fool enough to take the periodic table as a statement of faith would think otherwise)
the creation of new knowledge to benefit all mankind.
This is not what science is about. This is what the people who've made a faith of being homosexual THINK science is about.
Science is about the pursuit of knowledge. Regardless of what it does to anything.
why couldn’t a person with a sincere religious objection to the periodic table demand that it be removed from the classroom, just like pride flags?
Because it's not religious in nature.
Whereas pride flags exist solely to be religious symbols.
Again this is a devil's advocate argument. I don't really believe that science is a religion. But I am simply illustrating the absurdity of Azathoth's vague definition of 'religion' by noting that science falls under its definition.
Each element in the periodic table is defined under this system as being of air, earth, fire or water. They are compatible.
No they are not. They are mutually exclusive, because both belief systems claim that they alone are the true and sole explanation for the composition of matter.
It’s about who you fuck. The parade of dildos should give you a clue.
Who you fuck is just ONE PART of sexual orientation. It is simply disingenuous to claim that sexual intercourse is the ONLY thing that matters, and talking to kids about sexual orientation is equivalent to talking to kids about fucking. That is wrong.
scientific laws and theories
Which are famously being revised constantly
So? The Catholic Church has revised its dogma many times. The Bible has had chapters added to and removed from it over its history.
(only someone who is fool enough to take the periodic table as a statement of faith would think otherwise)
Oh really. Have *you* observed, say, the element samarium? How about dysprosium? How about scandium? How do you know these are real elements, hmm? Did you just *accept on faith* that your science teacher ("high priest of chemistry") was telling you the truth when he/she said that those are real elements on the periodic table? Hmm?
the creation of new knowledge to benefit all mankind.
This is not what science is about.
It's not? How do you know?
"Oh really. Have *you* observed, say, the element samarium? How about dysprosium? How about scandium? How do you know these are real elements, hmm? Did you just *accept on faith* that your science teacher (“high priest of chemistry”) was telling you the truth when he/she said that those are real elements on the periodic table? Hmm?"
Is your argument really "unless you yourself sees it, touches it, creates it, or observes it" it's simply a matter of faith to believe in it? And you are using this to claim the periodic table equates to the bible and thus is similar to a religion?
What else is the fat lying pedophile piece of shit going to do, admit he made yet another retarded analogy and go back to whacking his microchode to kiddie porn in his mom's basement?
He says without the slightest of ironies that many secularists do, in fact, treat science as a religion, including himself.
One with a sincere religious objection might also argue that the bear in the trunk of the car is just a figment of your imagination.
" Is science now a “quasi-religion”?"
I'd read the article, as Shackford himself explains why this is a poor analogy.
"So it is with every movement that adopts a banner: The flags represent an aspiration for influence, even as those who wield them hope to avoid being trampled underfoot."
The periodic table is not a flag. It does not represent a polity. It's purpose is to summarize and relate specific information about atoms. As Shackford notes, the Gay Pride flag is not just representative of a people, it is representative of a cause "'We're gay, don't tread on us.'"
When an agent of the state is endorsing any message (including the American flag, IMHO) it is within every parents' right to influence that message any way possible.
Give Jeff a break. He’s not very smart.
Jeffy is apparently a YEC, a groomer, and believes bears jump out of trunks and massacre people.
The Pride flag represents globalist totalitarianism. Hanging it is no different than when an invading army raises their banner above the city/territory they've captured.
The lysenkoism you support for trans and covid is indeed a religion.
I'm pretty sure nobody ever got arrested for stepping on a periodic table poster.
OM G
There is a vast difference between a teacher's personal proclivities and belief systems than the subject matter that has been defined as educational objectives. In a religious school, symbols of the religion would be not only encouraged but likely required.
Others have described the elements of the alphabet-soup following that indicate it is indeed a religion.
Since minor children are a captive audience in the public schools, there must be standards as to how much and what personal belief systems a teacher may present to the class. It is one thing to discuss a movement as an educational experience and quite the other to openly advocate for controversial movements. This would include political and other social movements as well.
In this setting, this is not a first amendment issue.
Should Periodic tables have trigger warnings?
Only after U.
The rainbow flag is a symbol of conquest.
The Gadsen flag is a symbol of resistance to conquest.
They're the exact opposite of each other.
OK, groomer.
The school board's lawyer argued that a parent's rights are not infringed when a child is merely exposed to an opinion that is contrary to the family's religious values
Quite right. In fact it would be the duty of any good educational curriculum to challenge the students' preconceived ideas and biases, not just with religion but in all facets of education.
"parent’s rights are not infringed when a child is merely exposed to an opinion that is contrary to the family’s religious values"
Alright, cool. Now let the teacher expose them to prayer and the bible. No one's rights are infringed by mere exposure, right?
Thank you for posting that. This hullabaloo about gay stuff in school brings back memories of people on the left having kittens about the mere mentioning of creationism in school.
Well get ready for an entire month of it.
Not looking forward to it.
I am absolutely in favor of a comparative religion class. Exposing kids to new ideas and challenging their preconceived biases is not the same as forcing them to pray.
Weird.
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/supreme-court-rejects-case-of-christian-teen-forced-to-write-islamic-conversion-prayer
Just as comparative religion might be a good elective for high school students but not for third graders, sexual orientations might be understandable and even helpful for high school “health ed” courses but not appropriate for third graders. The problem is not the selection of “opinions” to expose students to, it’s what might be age appropriate for a compulsory tax funded government education system versus privately funded voluntary school curricula or for parents to discuss with their kids at home in an age appropriate way.
What if the biggest indoctrinator is, in fact, the education establishment?
"In fact it would be the duty of any good educational curriculum to challenge the students’ preconceived ideas and biases"
This is obviously wrong.
By this logic if the school taught the secret history of Xenu and taught children that they can fly if they just believe hard enough, we could say the "good" school is fulfilling its duty. But that is preposterous.
Also of note, its only good and virtuous to challenge a preconceived idea or bias if the result would be moving the student more toward the left.
If you were to say, correctly, challenge the preconceived bias that masks absolutely work, and healthy young people absolutely need a vaccine for a virus which they have statistically zero risk from, and that COVID definitely occurred spontaneously at a wet market, then its OK to dismiss those ideas without any further debate, as they are wrong think, and are considered by the state and the virtuous right thinkers to be incorrect. And damnit, there is a scientific consensus on it (or so we were told...).
Challenge the preconceived bias of the Climate Cult and see how much respect you get.
The interesting thing is that these statements always beg the question.
This sort of argument consistently gets made around gender reassignment and teaching. The argument attempts to portray itself as Content Neutral and Non-Authoritarian. "I'm not saying this specific stuff should be performed/taught- or even that Expert's preferred stuff...Parents should get to choose any medical procedure for their kids...Kids should be exposed to many types of ideas."
But of course these people don't really mean that. If you bring up female circumcision, or Intelligent Design, they insist those don't count- they are not "Valid Medical Procedures" or "Real education." And so the question that never gets answered is "Who determines what is valid and real." And that always comes back to some Authoritarian reliance on experts.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1663531437553852416?t=b9qqk647rbiGYxRMuPvFyQ&s=19
“LGB without the T” has become a popular line among anti-woke liberals but this is why it will fail
All of this is linked, everyone knows why, and denying it is both ineffective and disingenuous
"@Alyssafarah
The public line of: “we simply have concerns about underage kids transitioning” feels a lot more like it’s actually about trying to make the entire gay community invisible."
You can’t push tolerance of alternative sexuality onto children without opening this door
You can’t make sexuality part of the civil rights revolution without indoctrinating kids into it
But of course these people don’t really mean that.
Hey look, it's more mind-reading.
And so the question that never gets answered is “Who determines what is valid and real.” And that always comes back to some Authoritarian reliance on experts.
Either you believe in objective reality, or you don't.
Either you believe in objective reality, or you don’t.
Wait--aren't you the guy who thinks the periodic table is a statement of faith?
Clearly you and objective reality parted ways a LOOOONG time ago.
Here's a clue --objective reality isn't something one 'believes' in. It simply is.
People who claim to 'believe in' objective reality are usually the ones that are seen to shit on it in favor of weird untruths they DEMAND be 'real'
The irony of your last comment is almost immeasurable.
So ironic it had a magnetic field.
"Hey look, it’s more mind-reading."
No it isn't. I am summarizing the conversations we have previously had.
CHEMJEFF: "I am in favor of letting parents, doctors, counselors and therapists work it all out themselves to decide what is best for the child"
REPLY: Suppose a parent wants his daughter to have her clitoris excised...should that be allowed?
CHEMJEFF: Is it a valid medical procedure?
I don't believe I have mis-described your position, but please do correct me if I am wrong.
"Either you believe in objective reality, or you don’t."
Except "valid medical procedure" is an inherently subjective definition...so....
Of course you are misrepresenting it. You are misrepresenting the entirety of the discussion.
You are misrepresenting the entire discussion when you write things like this:
This sort of argument consistently gets made around gender reassignment and teaching. The argument attempts to portray itself as Content Neutral and Non-Authoritarian.
No one claimed anything about "non-authoritarian" except you. Of course if health care decisions are left up to the decision of doctors, parents, counselors and therapists, there will still be an authority involved - some authority has to establish standards of care, some authority has to certify and credential the professionals. And I even said that I am totally fine with government regulation of these health care decisions, to an extent - such as requiring explicit consent of all parties, multiple opinions, waiting periods, things like that. There is more authoritarianism for you. So instead of sneering "Ha YOU LIE when you promise non-authoritarianism!" it only points to your willful and deliberate deception and misrepresentation of my position.
Oh, but now you are going to say "Ha I KNEW IT YOU'RE AN AUTHORITARIAN ASSHOLE!" But guess what - so are you. So is every human being on the planet. After all, would YOU legalize FGM? And even if you were to answer 'yes', you have stated in the past that you believe parents hold the rights of children in trust, meaning that parents do not have unlimited authority to treat their children however they like even to the point of real abuse. And I agree with that statement. But in making that statement, you implicitly acknowledge that there is *some* limit where even you, Mr. Non-Authoritarian, would call on some authority figure to tell a parent "that is not a valid medical procedure" or "that is not a valid parenting technique". Such as this very sad example:
https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2023/05/29/mother-pleads-guilty-after-arizona-boy-starves-to-death/
It does not take the power of mindreading to conclude that everyone here would be in favor of an authority figure telling this parent "no, locking your child in a closet and denying your child food is not a legitimate parenting technique".
By acknowledging that the state has the legitimate authority to punish some parenting decisions, we all admit to being authoritarians on some level. So, you don't get to wag your finger at me and call me an 'authoritarian'.
What you are doing is similar to the same kind of stunt that Jesse et al. pulled when it came to censorship. He wanted to try to claim that he was "anti-censorship" and if you disagreed with him that you were "pro-censorship". Well, Jesse is also pro-censorship - it's just that the censorship that he favors, he redefines to be not-censorship. So he get to remain on his pretend moral high horse casting moral judgment on everyone beneath him, but in actuality he just refuses to acknowledge reality. What you are doing is similar. You like to condemn everyone else as being authoritarians without examining the authoritarianism within your own soul.
So the ADULT position here, is not "anti-authoritarianism" vs "pro-authoritarianism" (because that is just silly), it is "less authoritarianism" vs. "more authoritarianism". As libertarians we all want less authoritarianism. Putting medical decisions in the hands of parents, doctors, counselors and therapists results in a less authoritarian outcome. Putting medical decisions in the hands of Ron Fucking DeSantis or Joe Fucking Biden results in a more authoritarian outcome. Where do you stand?
"Of course if health care decisions are left up to the decision of doctors, parents, counselors and therapists, there will still be an authority involved – some authority has to establish standards of care, some authority has to certify and credential the professionals."
Except this is absolutely contrary to the argument you were making. Your original argument was that people should be free to get controversial medical procedures if the doctor, parent and counselor agree.
Let's cut to the chase here: if you really believe that some authority gets to decide what is "Medically Valid" treatment, then you need to stop coming into these threads and disagreeing with people. Because all conservatives are doing is formalizing that process. You insist that your activist doctors are the authorities, and conservatives are formalizing the authority of doctors who disagree.
Except “valid medical procedure” is an inherently subjective definition…so….
No it isn't. *In this context,* it is a medical procedure to treat a diagnosed disease state. Because we are not talking about purely cosmetic surgery.
It is. The decision of whether to perform gender affirming surgery on children is inherently subjective. It required people looking at the costs in money, lifetime medical care, and the risk of complications and deciding these costs were outweighed by the benefit of affirming gender dysphoria.
Leeches, bleeding, lobotomy, or just plain psychological counseling are all "medical procedures" that have been used to treat diagnosed mental issues. "Validity" of the procedure has always been subjective. It requires deciding whether the balance of benefits outweigh the balance of costs.
And go to many non-western countries and they will tell you that certain things, like female circumcision are valid treatments for the biological condition of being a vulnerable girl.
You can teach children about the importance of intellectual rigor and challenging dogmatic ideas. You don't do that by simply trying to insert your own values and dogma.
You can teach children about the importance of intellectual rigor and challenging dogmatic ideas. You don’t do that by simply trying to insert your own values and dogma.
But that is going to be the inevitable complaint from those whose beliefs are being challenged - "you're indoctrinating my child with your own values and dogma!"
Jeff.
Honest question for you. Do you understand the difference between objective thinking and subjective? The subjective should not be taught by schools. Moral beliefs are the realms of parents, not government.
I disagree. I do not think there is a bright line, and even schools must teach some basic moral baselines (e.g. The Golden Rule) in order to function.
Even in choosing "objective" items to present to kids, subjective decisions must be made- do we teach binary math, or do we teach balancing a checkbook? Do we score kids on their ability to complete assigned work on time, or do we score them on mastery (thus allowing test re-takes, and largely eliminating due dates)? Do we teach American History, or African? Do we teach about Harvey Milk the Gay Rights Activist, or Lincoln, the president.
We cannot pretend that school is mere objectivity. Because it means you always be required to defend something that is subjective, objectively.
We must accept that the entirety of a student's curriculum is subjective. They only have so many hours to learn, and there is NO objective way to determine the "Optimal" spending of those hours. Just as there is no objective way to determine "Optimal" cars for people, or "Optimal Career". It is inherently subjective, and the biggest victory of Statists and the Devil was convincing us that some objective standard exists.
So if it is all subjective, the question becomes: who gets to choose? I argue it is Parents. The leftists argue it is them and their Anointed Experts.
+1
I disagree. A school can institute a set of rules without delving into the morality of said rules.
Rule 1: no violence
They do not have to say why the rule exists. Whether the Golden rule, a spiritual reason, or any other.
Morality is the discussion of right or wrong. A rule can exist outside that discussion point.
Youre also arguing a subjective discussion of what should be taught. Which is had by adults and governments for said discussion. This is different from the objective items students should be taught. Students are not determining their own curriculum.
"This is different from the objective items students should be taught. Students are not determining their own curriculum."
It really isn't. Because by subjectively choosing what will be taught (whether objective or not) you still insert subjectivity.
"Look, teacher, I want you to only teach objective facts in history- only things that have been verified by multiple sources."
At the end of the year, a kid comes home hating America because all they learned was that we owned slaves, bombed Japan and carpet-bombed Germany and Vietnam, never learning about the context and never learning about the good things that have occurred.
The worst poison to American Liberty is the notion that there is a "Right Way" to do things. Schooling is just a consumptive choice. I want my kids to learn even many subjective things, like how awesome and unique this country is, even if that is my subjective bias peeking through. There is no Objectively Optimal set of standards- any more than there is an objective standard for "the right film to watch" or "the right vacation for american families".
The *ONLY* metric that determines whether the Education a child receives was "right" or "wrong" is whether their guardian consented to it.
Now, since most parents are semi-rational, aware individuals, we will see broad agreement on some "table stakes". Math, writing, reading, science...but these are not "right" because they are objective, they are "right" because almost everyone will consent to them being taught.
How to determine if a teacher is advancing personal belief versus exposing children to other opinions and developing intellectual rigor:
Are both sides of the arguments being presented?
Are resources provided to the class for both sides of the argument?
Are the children aware of the teacher's viewpoint on the topic?
If a poll/vote is taken, do the children overwhelmingly support the teachers position?
Discuss those measurements with an activist teacher. The responses you receive will be quite telling.
There is a difference between the educational exposure and resultant discussion of an opinion (and surely the opposing opinions) and the personal advocacy of the teacher.
Remember, children are highly impressionable and a captive audience. An unethical teacher determined to develop converts to his cause is a dangerous person and should not be around other people's children.
Teachers are authority figures. The flag is not there to stimulate debate about current political questions, it is there to promote one side in a political debate. They should not be expressing political opinions in the classroom.
What is the political opinion that you think the Pride flag represents?
Well, that controversial ideas about sexuality and sexual identity should be taught in public schools for starters.
Shackford provides the answer in the article: "More broadly, these banners represent constituencies trying to influence the government and culture."
Is Mr Shackford wrong, here? If so, how?
Flags are so gay.
Let's look at the history of the rainbow, shall we?
It is a clearly religious symbol, given by God as a sign he would never again destroy the world with a flood.
So the use of this religious symbol is first of all a definite case of cultural appropriation. Then its use in schools is clearly a violation of the establishment clause.
(and, just for the record, pride is a sin too)
Umm, the history of rainbows goes back a bit further. To the first time white light was refracted and reflected through water droplets.
The first time that happened wasn’t even on Earth.
Are you being serious with this response?
Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq. likes to feign autism from time to time to derail discussions. Oddly he doesn't seem to have any problem detecting sarcastic nuance when his butt buddy sarcasmic decides in the middle of a serious discussion in which he has posted dozens of serious replies that he's actually just being a silly-willy. This usually happens after sarcasmic has realized that he has been intellectual decimated and has run out of red herrings and drunken logical contradictions.
I think you are putting a bit much into the meaning of the rainbow there. The argument over what political movements count as religion is silly. The rainbow flag represents an ideology. Ideologies can resemble religions in many ways but they are not one and the same.
One will signal that you belong to a group of people that dont go along with the mainstream, have a little bit of a rebellious side, and will potentially cause large amounts of hate to be sent your way, with calls for cancellation and removal at the mere display of said flag.
The other one is the pride flag.
It is something that Shackford still thinks LGBT are the oppressed minority, rather than the establishment now and hold the whip hand in most jurisdictions.
It is easier than accepting that the LGBT movement has changed into the authoritarian marxist quasi-religious that it is today.
It probably is hard to see that switch happening in real time, after being 'with the cause' for so long, and reckon with the fact that its been co-opted by so many groups that completely bastardized it.
We are light years away from "we just want to be left alone and not be harassed or assaulted". The critical race/gender folks and climate activists (yes I realize the venn diagram is a near complete overlap here) have hijacked it and turned it into an all-left-wing purposes marxist vanguard.
Marxist vanguard for what? What is this big bad Marxist conspiracy that you think the gays want to impose on you?
Vanguard for this, perhaps?
https://denvergazette.com/news/government/colorado-teachers-union-anti-capitalism-polemic/article_f31b3b7c-f810-11ed-a540-1f1adeb0fd84.html
"The Colorado Education Association, which represents more than 39,000 K-12 teachers, support professionals and higher education staffers, held its assembly in April and passed this resolution:
"The CEA believes that capitalism inherently exploits children, public schools, land, labor, and resources. Capitalism is in opposition to fully addressing systemic racism (the school to prison pipeline), climate change, patriarchy (gender and LGBTQ disparities), education inequality, and income inequality."
How many dozens of links have you been given regarding marxism and critical theory and you still pull this bullshit?
Critical theory doesn't even exist! It's just an idea! Like Antifa!
Yes, the 5-10% of gays in the country "hold the whip hand" and are an oppressive minority. LOL
See today's Brickbat where an intern position in England excludes ethnically English people. A majority can be discriminated against in the name of a minority.
Oh. So Colorado hasn't gone after a Baker with the force of government for a decade now.
That is different because FYTW
Less than 2% of the United States owned slaves, cytotoxic.
“Gay marriage will never be used as a stepping stone for polygamy.”
– every proponent of gay marriage fifteen years ago
A new identity flag dropped last November: More than 30,000 polyamorists voted on a new pride design.
*sigh*
"Gay men and PRIDE have long been slandered as something that will lead to pedophilia and grooming, and we are sick of it!"
"Also...if we cant teach your kindergartener about sex kinks and teacher cant talk about the 3 way he had at the bath house this weekend, we will literally lose our shit"
Sorry but I don't subscribe to the belief that all gays are pedophiles.
Luckily, he never said that.
This is what is actually called a Strawman.
Except that I see that argument made all the time. Maybe not by him, but definitely by the people he gets opinions from.
Cite a single example.
*crickets*
Maybe he'll bring his citations to the next Ministry concert when he tries to get Tulpa to fuck him the men's room.
If you stopped shouting "Groomer!" into the faces of everyone who disagrees with you like a fucking asshole, and instead listened to what they had to say, you'd probably still disagree with them but at least you'd learn something about their actual intentions.
"and instead listened to what they had to say"
I did listen. They keep saying "WHY WONT YOU LET ME TEACH YOUR YOUNG KIDS ABOUT SEX AND GENDER?!?!?!"
Which is about the most groomerey thing you could say, so there's that
I mean listen to the people who want to teach this stuff and why they want to teach it, not the strawman you easily refute with accusations of bad intentions.
Wanting to teach it to a 5 year old is not, and will never be appropriate, and that's not a strawman im skewering, its an actual argument that actual LGBTQ activists are making, and the media is carrying water for every time they mention the "dont say gay" bill
Right. Just like everyone who wanted creationism in school was recruiting kids to be Amish.
I'm sure the Amish would be very surprised to hear that.
I'm sure the average gay person would be surprised to know public schools are grooming kids of single-digit-age just for them.
Got enough straw there, Sarc?
Stop letting extremists define the argument.
Yeah, we should listen to all those moderate, middle-of-the-road pedophiles who want to teach anal masturbation techniques to 1st grade kids.
I’m not defending anything here. Just saying that in between the extremes there are people on both sides with good intentions. It’s possible to disagree and acknowledge that they don’t have ill will.
No. You are defending it with false strawman to... defend it.
Lol. Of course. Those evil conservatives just won't hear the perfectly reasonable positions of professional educators who insist that they must have complete liberty to teach 5-7 year old children about gay sex acts and discuss the child's sexual identity outside the purview of their parents or start calling them by different pronouns without telling their family about it. And by the way, those conservatives? All MAGA terrorists who hate fags!
You are such a fucking joke dude. Wow.
Said the guy who calls someone a “lesbian midget”.
Listen to the religious activists on why they want to teach their religion to all kids. It is to save their souls!!
What sophistry.
I did listen. They keep saying “WHY WONT YOU LET ME TEACH YOUR YOUNG KIDS ABOUT SEX AND GENDER?!?!?!”
Which is about the most groomerey thing you could say, so there’s that
Why do you think it is "groomerery"?
Because you think if young kids learn about sex and gender at an age-appropriate level, they will be more likely to be sexually abused by their teachers?
Because you think that teachers are teaching young kids age-inappropriate lessons about sex and gender, such as with sexual intercourse?
Because you think that if kids learn that there's nothing wrong with being gay, that they are more likely to vote Democrat?
"if young kids learn about sex and gender at an age-appropriate level"
^ revealing, LOL. I bet you think its age appropriate Jeff. This kind of talk seems to keep coming out of shit liberals who dont have kids but are WAY too comfortable talking with them about sex very very early.
So is there NO age-appropriate discussion about sex for young kids? Not even fairy tales about storks?
And besides, in the elementary school classroom, teachers aren't even having discussions about sexual intercourse. It is about gender identity.
And what precisely is the origin of your ‘groomer’ accusation?
"So is there NO age-appropriate discussion about sex for young kids? Not even fairy tales about storks?"
No, not really. Just as there are no age appropriate discussions of cops stomping in the heads of perps or the Earth killing off all life because your thermostat is set at 70.
Kids, especially young ones, do not have the logical capacity to understand the discussion. They do, though, want to please their teachers and will do what they say, assuming they know better.
5 year olds have zero need to know about anal sex. Sorry.
This is absurd. You basically assume that young kids are incapable of learning. If that's the case, why even send them to school at all? Just send them to the salt mine or the monocle factory where they belong.
They're not incapable of learning, but some things are just not age-appropriate. That seems to be the part you've failed to comprehend here time and time again.
"This is absurd. You basically assume that young kids are incapable of learning. If that’s the case, why even send them to school at all?"
Let's teach 1st graders about theoretical physics. It's not like they cannot learn it, right?
If you've spent time with any kids, you'd know that at some ages --- no, there is no way for them to understand certain topics at all.
If you don't want a 22 year old purple haired Antifa clown teaching your 5 year old kid in kindergarten that his penis doesn't mean he's a boy and that he can start wearing dresses and calling himself Sally at school if he wants, but only if he keeps it a secret from his parents, then the only other alternative is to send them to the salt mines.
Does the bear jump out of the school bus at every stop, cytotoxic? Lmfao.
5 year olds have zero need to know about anal sex. Sorry.
Who said they did?
Pay attention to Jeffy's comments.
I did. damikesc, pardon the pun, inserted the word "anal" into the conversation. I was wondering what he was responding to.
"So is there NO age-appropriate discussion about sex for young kids? Not even fairy tales about storks?"
Let's just assume that maybe there is such thing as "Age Apropriate" discussion. Who gets to set that line? If you say "The Teacher" or some "Expert", you are being Authoritarian- literally rendering decisions to an Authority.
The only "right" level of appropriate age, is the level set by the parents because they are the ones holding the right to set that level. And if teachers don't like that, tough. They can set that level for their own children.
According to child psychologists, kids are deciding gender identity as early as age 7. Don't shoot the messenger. I found it hard to believe myself.
Because it is activist bullshit dumdum. There is a reason europe is pulling back on it.
Weak appeal to authority.
Nobody decides gender identity. Individual development occurs as a person ages from infancy to adulthood. Therefore, it is impossible at age seven to have a permanently formed view of oneself.
Don't tell me. Tell the child psychologists. I'm just the messenger.
I was told age 7-9. Thinking about it, this gay friend I had in college said he knew he was gay when he was 8. I remember thinking "Wow, really?"
I think I sort of started "liking" particular girls around that age, even if I didn't know much about the sex part. So seems plausible. I don't think it's helpful to lump being gay in with gender dysphoria though. Realizing that you are probably gay at a young age seems like a whole different thing from deciding you are the wrong gender. And you don't listen to a 7 year old about stuff like that. Young kids are highly prone to suggestion. I know 7 year olds who think they are cats. You start talking about how sometimes boys can be girls and some kids are going to latch onto that fantasy. The last thing a responsible parent or educator should do is blindly believe whatever a 7 year old says about himself.
Being gay is a sexual orientation, not a "gender identity".
The last thing a responsible parent or educator should do is blindly believe whatever a 7 year old says about himself.
Believing whatever people say about themselves is the basis of psychology. All they study is what people say about themselves. That's why psychology and psychiatry are of questionable scientific legitimacy.
Believing whatever people say about themselves is the basis of psychology.
Sort of, but that misses the point. You don't tell a suicidal person that they are right and there is no point continuing to live. You don't tell someone who believes he is the King of France to go move into Versailles. That is the opposite of what a therapist or psychiatrist is supposed to do. Yes, the source of information is what the patient says. But you don't just take everything they say at face value and it's just insane that that seems to have become the standard of care for gender dysphoria.
Well, your daughter at 7 was trying to recover from the horrifying effects of her father having physically and sexually abused her for which he lost custody to her mother during the acrimonious divorce, so your experiences may not be typical sarcasmic. Nice appeal to authority though!
The argument is about who teaches them. Most of the sane people believe it is up to the parents to decide when and how to discuss this stuff with their kids.
You're advocating for "experts" and their statist goons to decide.
People think it is "groomery" because most of us have no desire to talk about sex with kids, therefore we're naturally suspicious of people who do.
"Which is about the most groomerey thing you could say, so there’s that"
How about "Hey kid, don't tell your parents!"?
...Oh wait, they say that too.
That is where they lose ANY benefit of the doubt with me. I told my son years ago that the moment ANY adult says "Don't tell your parents" --- you tell me immediately. I have your best interests in heart, they do not. And had it happened, I'd have zero problems walking into that school and raising hell about it.
Ignoring that college grads, many of us anyway, KNEW education majors in college and they tended to be morons (and their entry requirements are really, really low), so they do not have the mental capacity themselves to discuss this stuff.
And sarc can't help joining jeff in the lies. Nobody gas said all gays are groomers, just those sexualizing children retard. There is even a gay group against grooming. This is a strawman you and Jeff use to push lies against those seeking to stop sexualizing children.
Most of the teachers pushing this bullshit are hetero. They hate themselves for being white and killing the planet, and are addicted to the victim narrative, so grooming comes natural to them.
When someone without my permission exposes my child to culture and adult conduct and prematurely sexualizes them and then tries to intimidate me into silently accepting it, I am absolutely not going to listen to anything other than "I am sorry, it will not happen again".
That is entirely acceptable, at face value. But here is the problem. In my opinion, there are too many people who regard even the mildest of discussion about LGBTQ issues to be "adult content" and "sexualizing kids". Such as for example simply mentioning "it's okay if two men or two women fall in love". No graphic sex talk, none of that, just mentioning it. The same people who are totally fine with children's stories about a prince and a princess falling in love completely lose their shit when it comes to a story about two princes falling in love, or even implying that it is okay if two men fall in love. That is the double standard that is completely irritating to me.
I do not think that having an age-appropriate discussion with kids along the lines of "it's okay if two men or two women fall in love" is "adult content" or "sexualizing kids" or "grooming" or anything harmful per se. I think it's the type of thing that schools SHOULD be doing, to promote tolerance and respect for all sorts of different walks of life.
So instead I see it as certain parents injecting THEIR religious/moralistic beliefs into the classroom by insisting that the entire public school curriculum follow their moral preferences about how to talk about LGBTQ issues.
How dare those taxpayers object to our erudite-ness!
How 'bout if we just tell them "sometimes two men or two women fall in love, but those people are a small minority who are widely and historically disapproved of, and it's unlikely you'll grow up to be one of them", and reserve judgement about whether it's "okay"? That would be the neutral position.
I can't tell if you know that you are so disingenuous. The age appropriate that is apparently acceptable to you is the same age appropriate that is acceptable to most and is not what is causing the current issues on the matter. No one is raising issue with your framing of what is age appropriate.
Yet, what people are taking issue with is the discussion about things like trans issues that are mostly based in dogmatic fictitious concepts and beliefs that border and embrace the absurd, coupled with the sexualization of children.
You continue this motte and bailey tactic where you claim to be the rational one by stating a non-contentious position that everyone should agree with. Yet, most people do, but rather than understanding that, you pretend that most people are being extreme and irrational (straw man), then (inadvertently?) you attack rational people, which then makes you look like a psycho trying to defend the sexualizing of children.
It's almost like your need to be the rational, thoughtful person righteously lecturing people has you constantly setting up straw men to knock down, which invariably leads you to defending the extremes you claim not to support.
You know how you solve this? Stop making up what you think people are arguing for or against, and instead address what they are actually arguing for or against.
I really don't think Chemjeff gets this. He really seems to think there is some objective standard of "age appropriate" or "medically valid".
But we know for a fact this is not the case. A mere decade ago, sex transition was WIDELY, overwhelmingly considered a nuclear option. 30 year old men had to go through years of analysis before finally getting transitioned- and this was largely because the costs of transition are so steep, and a person is signing themselves up to a lifetime of medical procedures if they do it.
Mind you, I think people on the right also hastily lean into "black vs white" generalizations, like "there is never an appropriate way to discuss these things."
Of course there are age appropriate ways: but the definition of "appropriate" is up to the parents and only the parents. And since sexuality and gender nuttery is very controversial and fluid right now, it is perfectly within the rights of Parents to say, "Look, let us handle this one. You concentrate on the other stuff, like Math."
This strawman would probably be more persuasive if you didn't leave it out to get eviscerated dozens of times in the same fucking thread, cytotoxic.
By the way I never once was read a fairytale about a prince and princess falling in love at school. That happened at home, and mostly before the age when I began attending school. Not only is this an idiotic strawman when the actual topic under discussion isn't gay fairytales, but pro-pedophile books featuring cartoon illustrations of a child performing oral sex on an adult, but it's also an idiotic strawman even if we accepted your mendacious premise because schools don't teach from fucking princess fairytales.
Polyandry and polygamy are two different things.
The Gadsen flag means "leave me alone and don't force me to do anything, and I will leave you alone and won't force you to do anything."
The pride flag is quite the opposite.
"The pride flag is quite the opposite."
Absolutely. It is the banner for left wing authoritarianism, wearing the disguise of 'tolerance'.
And you better also have this banner, and support its cause, otherwise you wouldn't be tolerant. You dont want to be an intolerant bigot do you? You know what happens to intolerant bigots?
The Gadsen flag means “leave me alone and don’t force me to do anything, and I will leave you alone and won’t force you to do anything.”
The Gadsen flag message contains not-so-subtle violence. "Leave me alone and don’t force me to do anything, and I will not kill you.
Sounds reasonable.
It's a deal.
Yes.
I'll admit that much of Shackford's article is pretty good. If only the editor of their dead tree edition gave as much care and attention to the hot takes these people put online.
That said, Shackford comes very close to the right conclusion, and veers off track at the last minute. It is unfortunate because he has all of the parts right there in his article.
"That would be a surprise to the first generation to wave that flag; gays and lesbians have had to fight for decades to convince governments to recognize their right to live as they choose and to create their own families. To many, the flag represents the same thing Deliu demands: self-determination."
Analysis like this is peppered throughout the article. Mr Shackford is unambiguous and clear: He agrees that flags aren't merely statements of fact. They are statements of moral belief. They are not just saying "these people exist", but rather that "We are these people and we want your support".
That's all fine and dandy, until you are dealing with government speech. A computer lab teacher- an agent of the state- is endorsing a specific set of moral beliefs. This is not some obscure reference in a history or poly-sci book. No person would disagree that the context of this teacher's placement- in a room teaching an unrelated subject, in a manner of respectful display- is not merely exposing a child to information about this belief system, but instead subjecting the child to State Endorsement of this belief system.
Shackford concedes that these flags are all symbols of moral belief systems, and that includes the Gadsden Flag. But he never approaches who has the right to determine which flags a child will fly. Education cannot be decoupled from moral belief systems. And so the question will forever be, which moral belief systems will be taught and who will choose them?
Any logical reading of rights would establish that the parents have the right to determine which belief system will prevail. Since the State has assumed those rights for the parents, those parents are completely in their right to influence the state to determine how the education will be handled. And I would argue they have MORE right than the Agent of the State who is trying to push his moral beliefs on kids instead of teaching them how to use a mouse.
"Education cannot be decoupled from moral belief systems. And so the question will forever be, which moral belief systems will be taught and who will choose them?"
And this leads us to the current debate of the right insisting that parents (who pay the taxes) have a right to have input in what their kids learn, vs the left who insist the parents shut up and let the experts tell you what's good for you.
Of course, as always the left is short sighted in never thinking, for a second, that at some point the state might decide on a philosophy they dont agree with, with a panel of experts backing them up telling them "I dont care if you disagree with this and it doesnt track with objective reality, the experts say you are wrong, now sit down and shut up".
"the left who insist the parents shut up and let the experts tell you what’s good for you."
If parents don't trust the teachers they send their children to, they are acting irresponsibly. Same as if they don't trust the baby sitter they hire, the lawyer they consult, etc. There's no shame in letting experts tell you what's good for you. The shame lies in putting your children in the hands of dubious people.
Teachers are not experts. Not in their OWN fields of education and certainly not in fields they have no knowledge on whatsoever.
How about when they do their own jobs competently we can discuss them doing other things?
If you want experts teaching your children, I’m sure it can be arranged. It’ll cost you though. I maintain that it’s irresponsible for a parent to entrust their children to teachers they deem incompetent, immoral, perverted or untrustworthy. Sure, parents have rights, but with rights come responsibilities.
with rights come responsibilities.
Nope. Your rights are yours, even if someone else considers you irresponsible. Being responsible is a different subject.
I don't think I follow. Whose responsibility is it to see that children are raised in a suitable environment if not the parents'?
You're right—you don't follow.
"You’re right—you don’t follow."
I still don't follow. Can you explain yourself? Try to be a little more expansive. Merely parroting my own words back at me isn't doing the trick.
I don't care if you understand me.
I guess that makes at least two of us.
If parents don’t trust the teachers they send their children to, they are acting irresponsibly.
You understand that most people don't have any control over who teaches their children, right?
I'm not suggesting parents should control teachers. What I'm suggesting is that it's up to the parents to send their children to teachers they trust. Doing otherwise is just a recipe for trouble for everyone.
Compulsory education laws and regulation of schools and teaching take that choice away from most parents. Only the affluent enjoy the luxury of choosing who teaches their children.
"Compulsory education laws "
These laws don't compel parents to send children to any particular school or teacher.
They compel parents to send their children to schools and teachers that are approved by the state. For the majority of parents, the only way they can afford to do that is by sending them to public schools.
"For the majority of parents, the only way they can afford to do that is by sending them to public schools."
Because education is not prioritized. There are many better things to spend money on. So they continue to put their children in the hands of those whom they claim are abusing their children sexually and psychologically. No wonder nobody takes these assholes seriously.
I don't agree. I think most people are too lazy to exercise control they possess. Same with these lunatics getting voted on to school boards, most people are too lazy to vote.
"There’s no shame in letting experts tell you what’s good for you. The shame lies in putting your children in the hands of dubious people."
From the resident branch covidian himself. LOL. Except we dont get to pick the 'experts' or the people that are pushing the experts propaganda, unless we get real school choice.
"If parents don’t trust the teachers they send their children to, they are acting irresponsibly. Same as if they don’t trust the baby sitter they hire, the lawyer they consult, etc. "
Again, they didn't hire the teacher. Also...parents DONT trust the sitters they hire to do what they think is right. They trust them to maintain an environment of safety, and the content of the stuff told to them, watched on TV, and/or taught to them, is filtered by what the PARENTS want for the kid, because the babysitter isn't to be given free reign. You are pretty much making the argument for me, while trying to argue against it. Jesus you guys really struggle with analogy here. Something about leaning too far left makes your brain a little lazy I think, you must get used to preaching to zealots that will openly accept propaganda without reason.
"unless we get real school choice."
You already have school choice, always have. If you choose poorly, don't blame me.
"Again, they didn’t hire the teacher."
It's not a question of hiring the teacher, it's one of trusting the teacher. Although nothing is stopping parents from hiring someone to teach their children, all I can do is urge these parents to hire a teacher they find is trustworthy. Sending children to a school where they suspect the child is going to be molested or psychologically damaged is the height of irresponsibility. I don't understand how you can excuse this repugnant moral laxity.
"parents DONT trust the sitters they hire"
For the most part they do. They trust the sitters will act responsibly. Without that trust, parents will overwhelmingly look elsewhere.
nothing is stopping parents from hiring someone to teach their children
The state is stopping them. Hiring a private tutor does not meet compulsory education requirements. Even if that were permitted, the majority of parents couldn't afford it.
"the majority of parents couldn’t afford it."
They have other priorities, I understand. Go to somewhere in East Asia where education is prioritized and teachers aren't held in contempt. They spend huge sums of money on education and encourage their kids to spend 18 hour days studying for university entrance exams. They go a little too far for American tastes, and student suicides are not uncommon and sexual development is stunted due to the stresses incurred at this sensitive time in human development.
Another alternative is education in Finland. They achieve good results in basic skills.
"Teachers, who are fully unionized, follow state curriculum guidelines but are accorded a great deal of autonomy as to methods of instruction and are even allowed to choose their own textbooks.[20]... Both primary and secondary teachers must have a master's degree to qualify. Teaching is a respected profession and entrance to university programs is highly competitive.[38] A prospective teacher must have very good grades and must combat fierce opposition in order to become a teacher.[39] Only about 10% of applicants to certain programs are successful.[40]"
" students in grades one through nine spend from four to eleven periods each week taking classes in art, music, cooking, carpentry, metalwork, and textiles."
" Outdoor activities are stressed, even in the coldest weather; and homework is minimal to leave room for extra-curricular activities."
"In December 2017, the OECD reported that Finnish fathers spend an average of eight minutes a day more with their school-aged children than mothers do.[30][31]"
"There are no "gifted" programs, and the more advanced children are expected to help those who are slower to catch on."
A very very different approach to education to the US or Asia, and arguably more successful.
schools of education in the US attract low IQ folks..often woman who don't know what they want to do in life and are very impressionable with "experts" pushing cultural marxism in their bullshit "education" classes. The solution is to shut down schools of education and force teachers to earn real degrees, math, engineering, hard science and then do two years apprentice teachers..screw "certifications" crap.
Most of my kids elementary school teachers (all female) were not bright and they would even say "well I wasn't good at math" when I pointed out how their "fuzzy" math methods didn't work. Get your kids out of govt schools..
"schools of education in the US attract low IQ folks"
What do you expect? Because education is viewed with contempt. We see it in these pages all the time. How it's more important for children to get a menial job adults don't want to do and get accustomed to work place discipline than to study. Denigrating the dedication and commitment of teachers is the norm in America. It's routinely bruited about that teachers are abusing children sexually and psychologically. With an attitude like that you're lucky to get anything out of education.
Don’t forget to teach the teachers to read and write. My best math teacher was a woman. She was a grump and tough but very clear.
But what they do in other countries has nothing to do with the falsity of your assertion that "nothing is stopping parents from hiring someone to teach their children".
There's nothing stopping a parent from hiring someone from Finland to teach their children, or pulling stakes and moving there all together. It's all a matter of priorities. This is America we're talking about so education comes low on the list of priorities. Parents routinely send their kids to schools which they claim are little more than fascist institutions where they'll be sexually abused, groomed, and persuaded to mutilate themselves. Don't take these assholes seriously. Their shrill insincerity should be obvious to anyone.
You're like Jeffy—repeating the same shit after repeatedly being told why you're wrong, without addressing the arguments made against what you said. Boring.
Parents routinely send their kids to schools which they claim are little more than fascist institutions where they’ll be sexually abused, groomed, and persuaded to mutilate themselves.
Can you give us the names of a few of these parents, and quotes from where they said these things?
"You’re like Jeffy"
I'm more evil than Jeffy or anyone else you care to compare me with. And I'm not wrong, it's the responsibility of the parents to raise their kids in a safe, nurturing atmosphere, even if it's inconvenient, requires sacrifice and foregoing the acquisition of the consumer goods the parents so deeply desire.
Can you give us the names of a few of these parents, and quotes from where they said these things?
"Can you give us the names of a few of these parents, and quotes from where they said these things?"
No, I can't. They are too cowardly to post under their own names and hide behind pseudonyms. If you know the names of any of these parents, you are welcome to post them. But I don't care what their names are. "Asshole" suits them fine.
You are so full of shit.
That's all too often the case with evil people like me.
"Experts" in "education" is an oxymoron. They don't exist. Reading, writing, even mathmatic methods which work have come from thousands of years of trial and error staring in Sameria. The Frankfort school is bullshit. Schools of Education are a waste..teacher should have real degrees..math, hard science, engineering...or for elementary history or economics as well.
End govt schools..public funding direct to the student..that is the only solution
"teacher should have real degrees..math, hard science, engineering"
Some of the worst teachers I encountered had such degrees. I came across them in university. I thought more of the teaching skills of the elementary and high school teachers. More inspiring, encouraging creativity and curiosity. In university, despite the professor's higher qualifications, that ability to inspire was surprisingly lacking.
Another issue is Shackford's refusal to acknowledge the changes that have occurred within the LGBTQIIP+ movement and what that associates their symbology with. There is a world of difference between "we're queer, let us live our lives unmolested" and the current "suck my female penis you lesbian bigot" or the "we're coming for your children" declaration from their approved groomer contingent.
It used to be.."we are normal folks like you who want to get married and have a family"..now it is "we want attention, we need parades, there are 300 genders and you will celebrate it"....it seems to be about attention doesn't it Scott?
"Any logical reading of rights would establish that the parents have the right to determine which belief system will prevail. Since the State has assumed those rights for the parents, those parents are completely in their right to influence the state to determine how the education will be handled. And I would argue they have MORE right than the Agent of the State who is trying to push his moral beliefs on kids instead of teaching them how to use a mouse."
While I agree the state has made this presumption with public school, this doesn't give parents the right to influence the public school, because then they are doing to other parents kids what the public school was doing to their kid. Shackfords article was riddled with openings to call for the abolition of state institutions, but I guess talk about people being gay is important too.
"this doesn’t give parents the right to influence the public school, because then they are doing to other parents kids what the public school was doing to their kid. "
This just seems unworkable and inaccurate.
Let's say a group of parents join together into a School Collective. They are exercising their individual parental rights to setup a school for their kids. That school cannot teach to every student a hyper-tailored education. It must make compromises. A finite curriculum must be decided. And the way that works is the Parents establish bylaws and frameworks of decision-making to choose the curriculum.
It is highly likely that a parent will not get all that they want from an education, via that system. They may want some things taught and others not taught, and the entire governance framework of the school balances the needs of all Parents in an attempt to please the most of them. A parent exercising his right to influence the education is not abusing the rights of another parent, because they are both consenting parties to that Collective. If the parent feels wronged, they have the right to petition via the governing rules, or even petition to change those governing rules. And if the parent can still not get the education they want (i.e. enough parents in the collective refuse to implement their preferred curriculum) then the parent can leave.
It is a great evil that our country has constrained parents and forced them into largely state-run collectives. That is an unlibertarian act that every freedom-loving person should want corrected. But having been added to that collective, there is nothing immoral about a Parent working within that collective's rules to set the curriculum, or to work with the governing body to change the curriculum rules. Yes, as with any collective, that will mean a compromise is reached that some (or many) parents will find to be Sub-optimal. But that isn't a rights violation, it is the natural consequence of EVERY collective arrangement- from schools to corporations to charities. Coalitions require compromise.
There is nothing wrong with voluntary association. In fact, it's the only system that works. The tension the culture feels over schools is because of the forced association.
I think we both agree here, parents should be seeking the best education for their individual child. (It seems that's what everyone says on this topic) I definitely agree that the state forcing families into it's education system is a serious misstep for society. My point was more along two wrongs don't make a right, but I understand it makes it even.
"But having been added to that collective, there is nothing immoral about a Parent working within that collective’s rules to set the curriculum, or to work with the governing body to change the curriculum rules."
This is true, but a real slippery slope. Better to just do away with the enforced collective.
"This is true, but a real slippery slope. Better to just do away with the enforced collective."
Completely agree, but until then, what is a parent to do? My kids are in school today. And I have every right to demand that their education meets my preferences, even as I pine for school choice. And that will mean that some people who want kids learning underwater basket-weaving will have their desires overridden.
"And I would argue they have MORE right than the Agent of the State who is trying to push his moral beliefs on kids instead of teaching them how to use a mouse."
If teachers can't be trusted with the task of decorating the classroom or dressing themselves appropriately in the morning, they shouldn't be hired in the first place. Parents are busy enough already. Hiring immoral teachers in the hopes that parents will be responsible for policing classroom decoration and ensuring the correct moral belief system will prevail is not going to help anyone. Certainly not the students.
mtrueman: We must trust teachers because they have to be trustworthy.
It's irresponsible for a parent to send their children to teachers they deem untrustworthy. Sorry, but parents bear the responsibility to raise their children in safe, nurturing environment. That means choosing trustworthy babysitters, teachers, doctors, nurses etc.
Yes parents do bear that responsibility.
The false choice you have attempted to frame is "Either accept the teacher provided by the state or hire your own." You have also conflated teachers with the education system as a whole. Real people, living in the real world, understand that parents have more tools at their disposal to manage the education of their children than just "Do I go to this school or not".
"understand that parents have more tools at their disposal to manage the education of their children"
The teacher is the paramount tool in the education of children. Textbooks, classrooms, internet chat clients, tests, school boards, desks, pens and pencils etc all have their place, but pale in comparison to the role of the teacher who can instruct and inspire. That's true with a private tutor, or a public or private school. You think education of a child can work in an atmosphere or mistrust and suspicion. I don't think that serves anyone, especially the children.
What I find contemptible is that so many here are convinced that teachers are sexually abusing their children, inculcating them with perverse sexuality, encouraging them to mutilate themselves, and STILL send their kids to these schools, claiming they can't afford to do otherwise. What a fucking pathetic excuse for parental responsibility.
Parents are starting to realize that. Schools have traditionally made it nigh impossible for a parent to sit in on a class their child is in. How the hell else would they know how incompetent they are? The school closures let parents see how incredibly awful the teachers are.
If teachers can’t be trusted with the task of decorating the classroom or dressing themselves appropriately in the morning, they shouldn’t be hired in the first place.
And yet here we are.
Because most parents do trust teachers with classroom decorating, choice of attire, and a lot more besides.
Once upon a time, there were enough moms who stayed home and the husbands went to work. These moms were at the schools and filled the duties now done by paid para-teachers. When the moms were there, this stuff was damped down, because it was immediately seen and discussed.
When more and more moms went into the workforce, the bad teachers went wild with their unrestrained freedom. We know this today because inadvertently the school lockdowns and online learning exposed these vile practices.
Ever ask yourself why the Biden administration is constantly bemoaning moms who do not work outside the home?
"Ever ask yourself why the Biden administration is constantly bemoaning moms who do not work outside the home?"
It's about holding down a job and contributing to the economy. Doing unpaid work for the family or the community doesn't cut it.
"the bad teachers went wild with their unrestrained freedom. "
I never had any experience with teachers going wild with unrestrained freedom. But it's not surprising if such teachers do exist. America is a nation that prizes freedom above all else, and there are over 300 million, so, bad apples, etc.
"It’s about holding down a job and contributing to the economy. "
Other than the the fact that people doing unpaid work ARE contributing to the economy, it says a lot about a person that they think the purpose of a person is to contribute to an economy.
"Other than the the fact that people doing unpaid work ARE contributing to the economy"
Not enough to affect the GDP, or be subject to taxation. That's what counts in the end. Why do you think the Biden administration constantly bemoans moms who do not hold down a job?
Good points...and it all started with the Fed and Nixon didn't it? Stagnant wages, inflation forcing moms to work...get your kids out of govt schools asap..befoe they are infected with wokeness
‘…….with common sense laws meant to give parents of all orientations, control how race, gender, and sexual orientation are discussed with their children…..
The more garbage they add to the rainbow flag the less inclusive it becomes. The less meaning it has. They should just stop and make a solid brown flag - the color kids end up with after mixing all or the finger paints together.
Its getting close to being a "OK really just not straight white folks"
Damn, there we go. The final addition to the "Pride Flag". A big Straight White line right down the center.
You know what else kids make that is brown?
Hitler? Usually the answer to these sorts of questions is Hitler, so I'm going to with that.
Try to follow along, it's a winding road.
Tommy Dorfman was a "proud and out" gay male actor (in some TV show I never even heard of, “13 Reasons Why,” but that's beside the point). He had been married to another man for some time.
About a year ago, Tommy decided that he was "non-binary" and started using "they" pronouns. "They" has since then divorced "their" husband.
And now "they" decided "they" are actually a transgender woman, with "she" pronouns. It is not clear to me whether there has been any surgery to complete that transition, but "she" decided to stick with the name Tommy and now identifies as a lesbian.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But here's a question. I grew up being told that "being gay is not a choice". I even accept that as a probable fact, especially as when I growing up being gay was not something one would *choose* given all the negatives that accrued.
But if Tommy can chose to transition--and who are we to argue against his right to chose?--and become a "she"...if "she" stays in "her" relationship with "her" husband (yeah, they divorced before but I'm asking a question), or to generally remain sexually interested in men, is Tommy no longer gay? After all, she is now attracted to the opposite sex, which is heteronormative, right?
Second, related question, having now transitioned to a "she", Tommy has now decided that "she" is attracted to women. Does this kind of willy-nilly gender and attraction swapping belie the long-held claims that people are born gay?
You are doing the woke wrong. You see, there is no choice. Tommy was born a transgender lesbian. All the gay, they/them and other stuff was born out of society oppressing Tommy and not letting "her" be "her" authentic self. And if in the future, Tommy changes, this agian is not a choice, but the evolution of Tommy's true self.
What baffles me about these people (never heard of this dude) is how do they actually hook up with other human beings? Every time they morph into another gender they are excluding a majority of a tiny minority of the population. First he's attracted to men and marries a gay man who apparently still prefers men to non binary people. Now he's attracted to women and calls himself a lesbian. But lesbians are attracted to actual women. So neither straight nor gay people are likely to want to have a relationship with this guy. Maybe he's fabulously wealthy and a charming and fascinating individual and he'll grow old with someone from the exclusive fraction of a percent of the population that are left. More likely he'll die alone.
That is something I wonder about too. Which makes me suspect it is largely akin to a fetish kind of thing.
It's pretty simple, actually.
No, people don't choose to be straight, gay, cis or trans. The closest you get to that is bisexuals who make a choice on which attraction they admit to in public. But they can come to a realization about themselves that re-contextualizes their life-so-far.
As to people's sexual orientation seeming to shift after a transition, that's not new. No idea why it happens, but it sometimes does.
If you want to know more, may I suggest looking into the research produced by the Kinsey institute? Provided Kansas hasn't burned it down yet. Apparently the state has recently remembered they have a world-renown research institution in the state and decided that's very upsetting to them.
straight, gay, cis or trans.
Two apples, an orange, and a doorknob.
You might want to let the trannies know since they've taken to accusing physicians of "assigning" a cis sex at birth. You might also want to rethink this before you go contradicting yourself 2 sentences later. Oops, too late.
Kinsey the entomologist who postulated that 20% of the population was gay based on his research with a few dozen self-selected criminals in prison and who made video tapes of adults sexually abusing children that are still under lock and key because the heirs to his research found it too despicable? Lol, yeah, quite a mind you've got in your corner there. Those disgusting Christians with their Gregor Mendels and Georges Lemaitres, there's WORLD RENOWNED faggot insectologists to teach them a thing or two.
Yup, Gadsen and Rainbow flags are totes the same. Except that one stands for a movement that wants to enforce a comprehensive ideology and manage all social interaction, and the other wants minimal government interference. What's a libertarian to do?
Reluctantly vote democrat seems to be the only option.
^ Gets it
+1
+10000000000; Best one today ????
What pronoun am I supposed to use for a this flag representing one thing and only one thing - preferred manner of having sex, i.e. '...Long may she/he/we/them wave...'?
>>conventionally heteronormative.
dafuq does this mean?
It means normal.
Normal people.
As opposed to narcissistic perverts like Scott
No, normal and normative mean different things. Normal means ordinary and unremarkable. It's descriptive. Normative is prescriptive, ie one should be hetero.
It's means not cool.
My god I don't care who you want to fuck.
I DON'T CARE. WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE ME CARE.
... do you have a similar reaction when going through the checkout line at your local grocery store? Or are you able to ignore the tabloids there with more poise?
I don't have any idea what you are talking about.
The few stores that still sell tabloids usually keep them behind a black divider because the content is considered inappropriate for a general audience. And it's 90% faggotry, since bitchy faggots and fag hag suburban housewives are the only people left who read the tabloids. It's no wonder you're so fucking out of touch, the world apparently passed you by about 30 years ago or so.
Well that's not really the issue, is it? Most Americans agree with the right to fly a Gadsden or Pride flag at your home, or putting a bumper sticker on your car. It gets a lot more murky when they are displayed in a public school funded by taxpayers. Here's a photo of a typical classroom in San Francisco:
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1637853781604851727/photo/1
Somehow, I'm pretty certain that if the teacher instead peppered the classroom with Pro-Life, MAGA, Pro-Gun, etc, flags, the school administration would have a fit.
Left-wing positions causes are just basic human rights that we all agree on (and if you don't, you're a bigot and should be ignored and/or silenced). Therefore they should all be in our public schools. If you are ANTI pride or BLM that is not a legitimate political position, that is oppression and bigotry.
Right-wing positions and causes range from grudgingly tolerated (but not in public schools, we don't need to be teaching our kids that crap, and they're ALL our kids) to needing to be outright banned due to their hateful and seditious nature.
Satire?
Less satire and more just recitation of the opponent's position.
Poe's law hits hard sometimes.
The libertarian ideal is to not have any government-run schools or government-decided curricula.
But public schools aren’t going away, so what’s the best we can do? I haven’t seen a better answer than leaving it up to the local school board.
So, you end up with pride flags in the public classroom in San Francisco, and that’s OK to most of the parents in San Francisco.
And you might end up with creationism being taught alongside evolution in Cottleville, Missouri. And that’s OK with most of the parents there.
Yes, that’s imperfect, but there isn’t any way to make public schools value neutral. So, at least make them match “community standards”.
The libertarian ideal is to not have any government-run schools or government-decided curricula.
And yet we do... so we allowed gay marriage to be sanctified into law.
That day people started believing only Gov-Guns can teach kids.
My next sentence right after the one you quoted essentially says, "And yet we do..."
Anyway, are you saying you are against gay marriage?
Yeah, he's mocking your idiotic premise that "Well, since government exists, we have to accept pedophile grooming in public schools. Shucks!" Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq. Come back and read it again some time when you're not experiencing a bout of selective autism and see if it makes more sense. Hope that helps!
If that is the Libertarian position, then why does this Libertarian site often criticize the decisions of local school boards for doing things like removing objectionable books from their curriculum?
It's amazing how on this issue we have to just accept the status quo and do the best we can with an imperfect situation, but on, say, immigration it's all-or-nothing. Can you give us a comprehensive list of government abuses we should all just shut up about and compromise, and which ones necessitate immediate and swift action, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq.?
Which is fine. No proponent of local control has a problem with shitty people congregating into shitty places and creating shitty local government. The objection is when piece of shit Marxist authoritarian bootlicking faggots like yourself then decide that no one is allowed to object, and that everyone else in every part of the country must also adopt those same shitty local government policies.
No, you might not, since the federal government made that illegal before your grandfather was a stain on your great-grandma's bedsheets. Mighty white of you to allow those backwater hicks the same local control you would afford to the pedophile tranny brigade in your native San Francisco though, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq.!
Last year when I first came out, I watched the newest season of Kids in the Hall...I dug up a review that is relevant.
----------
At this juncture, it’s worth pointing out that when Thompson’s famed gay character Buddy Cole appears in Episode 2 of the new show, one of his first acts, almost imperceptible, is to take a sexual identity flag from a planter as he walks past it and nonchalantly throws it over his shoulder onto the ground. This occurs after he walks past an old-school gay pride flag, one that he leaves untouched. There is no commentary added to the act, no glaringly obvious political statement, but it’s not a cautious touch, particularly in 2022.
--------------
Thompson has described Buddy as a "butch queen" and an "alpha fag", pointing out that while extremely effeminate, Buddy is also very forceful and strong willed. Thompson, who is openly gay, has always directly confronted charges that Buddy is a homophobic stereotype. "The whole idea of Buddy Cole being considered a terrible stereotype and a terrible throwback is, I think, just tragic," he told Orlando Weekly in 2000. "I mean, most gay men are more Buddy than Sly."
"Who? Who will not wear zee ribbon!"
"When you've lost the gays and lesbians..."
From the Federalist:
"It’s Time For Gays And Lesbians To Stand Up And Reject The Perverts Abusing Our Cause
Trans activism has also destroyed the gay community. What I call “original recipe homosexuals” like me are low on the totem pole beneath men and women claiming to be the opposite sex. Gay men are hounded by trans ideologues if we won’t date the slight and obviously female “trans men.” Lesbian bars have all but disappeared. Lesbians can’t say no to men in dresses without being called bigots at best or threatened with rape or murder at worst.
If you’ve paid attention to the “trans wars” on social media, you can find countless examples of lesbians being called “trans-exclusionary” or “bigots” for refusing to sleep with men. They’re not men, according to the trans activists. They’re “trans women” with “female penises.”
Trans activist abuse against women has become so prevalent even the activist-sympathetic BBC covered the topic last month.
“I’ve had someone saying they would rather kill me than Hitler,” one woman told the BBC. “They said they would strangle me with a belt if they were in a room with me and Hitler. That was so bizarrely violent, just because I won’t have sex with trans women.”
But worst of all is how the trans juggernaut has taken aim at children. In 2021, we’re watching mentally unstable parents tell their children they are born in the wrong body and need to have their puberty chemically blocked. Many of these abused kids will go on to take cross-sex hormones that will leave them unable to have children. This slow poison — we call it “gender-affirming care” — ages the body and causes bones and organs to degrade and break down long before old age.
There’s a name for this: Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. We used to recognize it when we saw a parent intentionally sickening an otherwise healthy child in order to bask in the attention that comes to martyr mothers. But utter the word “trans,’” and otherwise sane people look at this grotesquerie and call it “beautiful.”
[Josh Slocum "Former leftist, now living in reality. Host of the Disaffected Podcast.]
[Josh Slocum “Former leftist, now living in reality. Host of the Disaffected Podcast.]
Josh Slocum was the first man to circumnavigate the globe single-handed
Different Josh Slocum...that one's been dead for more than 100 years.
Indeed. I was merely amused by the juxtaposition. Nothing more free than single-handedly sailing around the world.
Between the Gay Liberation Front, Street Transvestite Activist Revolution, and The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, your "original recipe" has been hucksterism for your chicken-grease-salt ideology since its inception.
the trans cult is an existential threat to gays.
Feminism doesn't stack up too well against their ideology either.
Now it's an ideology? What happened to cult, scam, fad, religion, and sickness?
It is an ideology. Men being sexually attracted to men is an orientation. Women being sexually attracted to women is an orientation. Believing that there are no biological differences between men and woman, and then demanding surgery to fix being born "in the wrong body" requires a huge amount of mental gymnastics.
"Believing that there are no biological differences between men and woman,"
I'm not sure that's the right characterization. The gender and queer theorists I'm familiar with are fully aware that there are biological differences between men and women. Judith Butler, probably the most influential academic on the issue, tells us that man and woman go beyond the purely biological and trying to definitively nail down those concepts is a fools errand.
If you think that feminists and queer theorists insist there is no biological difference between men and women then you've been misled by pundits pushing a conservative agenda.
Evolution determines your gender. You can no more be the other sex than you can decide you are the president of Ukraine.
And the top 800 meter boy runner in most high schools time would qualify for the woman's Olympic finals and in a good % of times win the gold. Now one can dress or have imitation surgery, but they are not really the other sex. That is the problem here..tranvestitism is not transgenderism.
" You can no more be the other sex than you can decide you are the president of Ukraine."
If you can persuade yourself and others that you are the president of Ukraine, then that may be as close as anyone gets. I think society is changing and sexuality and gender are not what they once were - decisive aspects of a person's identity. Younger people especially seem to be rebelling against the rigid fixed roles assigned to us by our biology. Sexual activity among young people also seems to be on the decline according to surveys, and a new puritanism seems to be on the rise. I doubt it's genetic or evolutionary adaption. I suspect it's something to do with those endocrine disruptors in microplastics that we take into our bodies with every breath we take - I think they're behind the declining sperm count in men that is observed around the world. Give it a few more generations and we'll probably have a better idea what's happening.
Younger people especially seem to be rebelling against the rigid fixed roles assigned to us by our biology.
Transgenderism is the most radical conformance to rigid sex roles possible.
"Transgenderism is the most radical conformance to rigid sex roles possible."
I never thought that. At least the men -> women transgenders seem at best a parody of all that's feminine. Butler sees gender as
'performative' so I can see why some women find these transgender performances so distasteful. It's along the lines of black people's reaction to white people doing black face. I'm not so familiar with women -> men transgenders. Perhaps they don't rely on the same exaggerated camp that the others fall back on. With non trans women, natural born women, I never feel their gender performance is forced or insincere.
"Transgenderism is the most radical conformance to rigid sex roles possible."
It seems more accurate to characterize it as a rejection of one's biological and social destiny. Rigid conformism would be like those guys in the old days, denying their sexuality, marrying women and living a family life to conform to society's expectations.
The transgenderists believe that one's feelings, thoughts, behavior, and presentation must accord with one's sexual body type. That is exactly what sexist conservative traditionalists believe.
“The transgenderists believe that one’s feelings, thoughts, behavior, and presentation must accord with one’s sexual body type.”
That doesn’t seem to be accurate. Some transgenderists take to the surgeon’s knife in order to change their bodies to express their feelings about themselves. You’ve got it exactly backwards. ie It’s their thoughts and feelings that take precedence, and their bodies are merely vessels to be sculpted to follow suit. We see this in other forms that are recently popular. Tattooing, for example, was once the province of sailors and the criminal class. Now, it’s quite common among young people. Piercing was once the province of girls and once again sailors for some reason. Now again, young people not only get multiple ear piercings, but piercing of the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, nipples, tongue, penis, labia, and navel. Perhaps it’s possible to see transgenderism as an continuation of these libertarian body modification practices.
Once again, you're agreeing with me without realizing it.
"It seems more accurate to characterize it as a rejection of one’s biological and social destiny."
Can a white man reject his biological and social destiny and choose to identify as a black man? And demand that society honor his choices?
Why is it that it's supposed to be okay to reject a far stronger biological distinction (XX vs XY chromosomes) than it is reject the outcome a few genes? Males and females are FAR more different, genetically speaking, than a white male and black male.
Also, doesn't transgenderism negate things like the (supposed) gender pay gap? If every man at every company would simply go to the HR department and say they wish to identify as women, doesn't the pay gap vanish? Or, in a smaller instance, why fight California's law demanding 50% women on corporate boards. Just have the men on the board declare that they identify as women.
After all, Obama and Biden after him decreed that self-identification is sufficient under Title IX. "The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity."
And, according to the "rules" on transgender resources websites, there is no "requirement" that anyone even dress or even attempt to act as their declared identity, let alone have hormone therapy or the finality of surgery.
And no one is supposed to ever EVER question someone on their decision as to how they identify themselves. It MUST be accepted immediately (nay, celebrated) and without reservation.
” It MUST be accepted immediately (nay, celebrated) and without reservation.”
That seems reasonable, given our modesty and the lack of a gender police force tasked with deciding anyone’s true, original and socially acceptable gender and exposing the trans imposters. Society seems to be moving closer and closer to acceptance of the phenomena, much like what happened with gays since the 1960s. The state, whether it’s Biden or Budweiser, seems to be betting on trans to exert more and more influence on society which is increasingly calling into question the meaning of categories of male and female.
So the question of public acceptance of trans seems to be well on the way to being settled. The question that interests me is why trans is appearing now. I suspect biochemical environmental pollution may play a part, but there could easily be cultural reasons as well. The anonymity of the internet may give an outlet to impulses and feelings we normally take pains to keep hidden. America’s culture of free speech and expression and the endless celebration of celebrity and notoriety etc.
Or you could just actually listen to what the leading "academics" on the subject publish in their papers and spout off at the mouth about on their fawning television appearances.
Also you're a 9/11 truther, so the fact that you believe in a lot of delusional shit is no surprise to anyone. 9/11 trutherism is also an ideology, by the way. Hope that helps!
"Hope that helps!"
Not really. Butler's book is written for academics and is extremely opaque and verbose. My two sentence summary of it is probably the most accurate and concise explanation you're likely to get, in these pages at least.
"requires a huge amount of mental gymnastics."
If you're not prepared to do a huge amount of mental gymnastics, stick to geology or engineering or something. Leave biology and psychology to others. Heck, even botany might prove too much for you.
One thing from Butler's book I found particularly gymnastical is her take on trans people: they are men on the outside and women on the inside, while simultaneously being women on the outside and men inside.
Hate to break this to you, 9/11 truther, but unlike psychology which is subjective quackery biology is as unambiguous on this topic as geology or engineering. Sex is a binary, except in extremely aberrant situations caused by genetic chimerism that renders the affected subject sterile. Trans people are not one thing on the "outside" and another on the "inside" because mind-body dualism is a religious concept, not a biological one.
I agree that sex and gender are likely to be related somehow in ways we don't understand. Academics have only been delving into the subject for a 100 years or so, since the days of Freud and his colleagues.
"psychology which is subjective quackery"
Hence the need for mental gymnastics. Psychology is not nearly as clear cut as the study of rocks, for example.
Nor do women in general.
How can you be a feminist if you deny the objective existence of women?
"deny the objective existence of women?"
Because being a man or a woman goes beyond anyone's physical attributes.
No, it doesn't.
I get it! It's like how jet fuel can't melt steel beams, right 9/11 truther?
I'm skeptical of the self serving narrative offered up by officialdom. Aren't you?
"Transitioning" is conversion therapy.
This version of the Gadsden Flag is more educational:
https://ibb.co/4JQtc1m
If you want people to actually click on your links you should start a new sock, shreek. After you got banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography on your Sarah Palin's Buttplug account nobody is going anywhere near any link you post.
There is a massive difference. The LGBT crowd is after Gov-Gun [WE]-gangsters identity **entitlement** the other is in “defense” of their ‘inherent’ rights.
"political gesture of defiance against a government and culture that refused to grant gay and transgender people the same rights and respect as other citizens"
What a load of BS.... There isn't anything butt-poking prided psychopaths cannot do that straight can. It's all a BS 'pitty me' party to entitlements. And FYI; It's not governments job to *FORCE* a culture on the citizens. That's what the Puritan religious psychopaths did and that's exactly what LGBT is doing.
"Read a sex ed book in Florida that acknolwedges you exist" is an easy one. Also new. I mean, sodomy was illegal for a long time, but you could still have sex ed books that acknowledged gay folk, they would just also have said "and this is bad".
Since you can do that today if you feel like traveling to Florida, that's maybe not such a great example you stupid faggot. Also learn to spell "acknowledges". You already look like stupid enough without littering your posts with typos and misspelled words from your sub-average education. Unless it's the syphilis finally catching up with you.
I liked the part where this was Ron Desantis’ fault for “stoking it”. Like how the Nashville cops stoked the Covenant shooting. Or WWII was the French Resistance’s fault
You should go look up when those flags were created. Unless by "past few years" you mean "decades ago", most are older then you think.
https://www.rd.com/list/lgbtq-flags/
None of it is new:
The movement has been an insane grab bag of self-identifying cats since inception.
Interview with Bari Weiss:
The issue of how Jews are received in progressive spaces is still an important one to her. In June, she wrote a widely shared piece about Jewish protesters who were told they could not march in a Chicago protest organized by lesbian activists if they carried banners with a Star of David because the event was “anti-Zionist” and “pro-Palestinian.”
“What concerns me, and this is sort of what’s behind my piece on the Women’s March or the [Chicago] Dyke March, is a progressivism that forces Jews to check their Jewish or pro-Israel or Zionist identity at the door in order to be good progressives,” she said.
True! Faggots have been pushing degenerate pedophile shit since the '70s. Glad you're finally willing to admit that, faggot.
The past few years have seen an explosion of colorful flags allowing ever-more-specific labels for spots on the gender and sexuality spectrums. There are specific flags for lesbians, pansexuals, trans people, asexuals, nonbinary people, kinky people, and more.
If Scott read his his source material, he'd know why this was.
"Years after the EEOC's order, the Gadsden flag's appearance at the Capitol riot raised the question: Who is the "me" in "Don't Tread on Me"?"
And what question did the appearance of the normal American flag at the Capitol riot raise?
Gadsden intended his flag as a "warning to Great Britain" not to violate the liberties of its American subjects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
One is traditionally flown on the oldest ship in the US Fleet. The other is a rainbow flag.
One was appropriated from the resistor color coding chart that electrical engineers have been using since 1920. The other has a snake on it.
NTSC == Never Twice The Same Color.
I always just slap 'em on the multimeter anymore.
Resistors, that is. Not the trannies. For those I use Peak meters, which are really damned cool. Takes a lot of guess work out of it.
The author's premise that a classroom is a public forum for expression. It is not. That is why teachers may not post religious icons.
Hey Scott what does computer science have to do with forcing your students to search for homosexual sites? Govt schools shouldn't be pushing sexual preferences (or the mental illness that is "transgender" as evolution confirms your biological sex not your desire to be the other sex).
Straight flags? Oh no...that is well bigotry right?
What this is about is attention..screaming for attention.."look at me, look at me"...when anyone constantly needs to have parades or screaming about themselves it is a sure sign of an inferiority complex of galactic size.
>>At the most basic level, all these flags say, "I am here," and sometimes, that is itself an act of defiance against state repression.
Problem for the LGBTP though is that it's not just saying that. It's saying, "I'm here, I'm queer, in your face, I'm coming for your children - and if you don't like it, I'll ruin your life."
It has no grounding in history or culture. It's a modern symbol of weaponized victimhood, threat-induced "empathy," intolerance, and hatred.
This unusually good article raises hope Scott will do a sweat T-shirt issue. Libertarian T-shirts were almost an invention of UTexas. "I Got Stoned with Judge Bork" was a 1987 hit. As more specific plank shirts popped up, anarcho-Jesus-Republicans retaliated with counterfeits depicting Rothbard and Ronnie Paul, but omitting their appeals to violence against women and democracy. Who is winning the T-shirt contest? Libertarians or infiltrators?
Reminder. On Saturday sarc was defending Jeff in regards to these beliefs. He was stating any pushback on transgender "science" or teaching was not libertarian. Was he drinking then or now?
Trick question, using "or".
"Goldilocks has Two Mama Bears"
He probably would have liked that.
Hit it.....Nick/Matt and the gang are not libertarian..their key issues are abortion (up to birth?), open borders, and sexually mutilating kids (trans movement)...and Scott constantly coming in to defend this tribe and dismissing the pedo/groomers as it could reinforce negative stereotypes of his tribe is pathetic.