I would actually rate it maybe PG. For Americans
We have seen plenty of similar moves by G cartoon characters. In most Disney movies
Principal fired over CRT
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
We have seen plenty of similar moves by G cartoon characters. In most Disney movies
And what is inherently sexual about that?
Is it not very normal, in this culture we live in, for people who love each other and have committed to be in a relationship to embrace or kiss for reasons other than sexual gratification?
I mean, let's state the obvious. The fact that one of the individuals in the picture chose to make this image public strongly indicates that he did not see it as sexual, does it not?
I get that people are going to have different standards, but come on. If you saw people doing this on any beach, you probably wouldn't think twice. You certainly wouldn't think they were about to tear off their clothes and ram their engorged genitals together in full view. You would, of course, understand it as an expression of affection and closeness between people who love each other, which is the actual intention.
You don't think it's offensive to accuse the photographer of using a couple's anniversary shoot to pressure them into making pornography?
As I understand it, middle school ages in the US are not standardized as they are in the UK, but they start out at age 9 and cap out at age 14. Those are still very much children.
And?
At that age, their jokes aren't even going to be funny or effectively insulting, which won't stop them making them anyway regardless of what anyone else does. Again, I don't entirely get why you're so scared of literal children.
Of course, if the children are going to start saying racist shit which they learned from their racist parents, that's a different matter, but at that point the problem isn't really going to be solved by not embracing your wife in places where they might potentially see it. If anything, that might actually help them in the long term.
It reads like a white liberal with a background in diversity training, it certainly doesn't read like someone who has read critical race theory, or indeed much academic theory at all.
To be clear, you're reading some absolute nonsense into what I'm saying. I'm not saying any of that. I've explicitly said the opposite of some of it. Don't be weird.
You may need to google adolescence. You'll find typically people use age 10 as the starting point.
But you already did google it, which is why you decided to use 9 as the start of middle school, because setting aside children who skip over grades, I don't think there are schools in the US that put 4th grade into "middle school". And moving out of your bad "gotcha!" attempts, the specific man this thread is about was principal at a specific middle school that has 6th-8th grade, which is to say 11-14 year olds. (To anyone reading who might be confused, he was middle school principal when the photo thing happened, and moved to high school principal since then).
I wish we had a better managed public school system. Too much of it is controlled by boards with no oversight. I feel like its intentionally being torpedoed by bad actors who want public schooling to fail so that corporately owned private schools can replace it. It makes me feel sad and helpless regardless of the contextually details around this particular suspension.
How the fuck would this vanilla shit provoke any outrage? Wedding photos are more sexualized than that, holy fuck.For those curious:
I'm calling it. It's not about "sexuality". It's about two different skin tones.
For that context, 'sexual' is just a way to make 'romantic' seem more scandalous than it actually is. This has practically been a stock romantic pose at least since From Here to Eternity, and you see variants of the 'missionary' kiss - to borrow your phrasing - even in explicitly kid-focused media like Shrek 2 and Pocahontas. Frankly, I very much doubt that you yourself would have given the picture so much as a second thought had you come across it without first being primed to look for objectionable material in it by what the articles told you about it. Mind you, that's no particular failing on anyone's part, it's just how the mind tends to work.
Ok so I go like 3 points.
1. Why couldn't my teacher of been a Kirkland brand Shemar Moore
2. I would not call that picture sexual hell calling sensual would be giving it too much leeway. Hell I thought it was just a basic ass stock photo with pretty actors. Beautiful couple and I want photographer. Low key maybe some parents are jealous.
3. This is not about expose kids to naughty things we need to understand the internet is strong and these little ones have probably already seen some shit and making innapropirate jokes at that age is part of the process.
4. Yeah I said 3 but I can change my mind. I feel this is about who the teacher is married too. If skin tones matched on the whiter sider I can assume at a 95.2 percent chance no firing would occur.
5. What ya gonna do I make up the rules as I go. At this rate the most education kids in Texas will get about race relations in America is Rick Sanchez flossing in a Birmingham jail cell.
1. Why couldn't my teacher of been a Kirkland brand Shemar Moore
2. I would not call that picture sexual hell calling sensual would be giving it too much leeway. Hell I thought it was just a basic ass stock photo with pretty actors. Beautiful couple and I want photographer. Low key maybe some parents are jealous.
3. This is not about expose kids to naughty things we need to understand the internet is strong and these little ones have probably already seen some shit and making innapropirate jokes at that age is part of the process.
4. Yeah I said 3 but I can change my mind. I feel this is about who the teacher is married too. If skin tones matched on the whiter sider I can assume at a 95.2 percent chance no firing would occur.
5. What ya gonna do I make up the rules as I go. At this rate the most education kids in Texas will get about race relations in America is Rick Sanchez flossing in a Birmingham jail cell.
You're all missing the point. I'm not saying the picture is pornographic or inappropriate in a general sense. I'm not saying that picture is something kids shouldn't be allowed to see. I'm saying that publicly displaying the sexuality of a person who is the highest authority figure in the daytime hours for a bunch of adolescents is an easily avoidable misstep. I'm not suggesting in any way that the picture would corrupt the youth, I'm saying it might impact his reputation among the youth who they need to respect him to maintain order.
Do any of you seriously believe a public school district asked the principal to take down his romance novel cover picture because they're against interracial couples, and if so what universe do you live in?
The one where they did just that.
Seriously, what fucking middle schooler goes onto Facebook and looks up their Priciple?
No, I'm reading what you actually said. You didn't say that that picture would undermine the position of principal, you said that it was sexual. You said that the photographer deliberately posed this couple to be sexual. Now, what I will freely admit is that I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that, because it's a slightly baffling take to me. In what way is this sexual? On what basis are you assuming a sexual intent on the part of the photographer?
Truthfully, I wonder how much much of the supposed "sexuality" of this image is stereotypical assumptions based on the appearances of those involved. They're an attractive couple, we might even say a sexy couple, but being sexy isn't the same thing as being sexual. Being sexy does not imply sexual intent. Being sexy does not preclude the possibility of non-sexual acts of physical affection.
The other problem, of course, with basing the perception of the "sexuality" of an act on the sexiness of those involved is that certain groups of people are particularly prone to being viewed as sexual beings at the expense of being understood as emotional beings. I can't wait for you to actually read some nonsense into that, but it is unfortunately very true.
And?
I didn't google adolescence by the way. I'm fully aware that many 14 year olds have visibly started puberty. I just don't care. It's not important to the actual point I was making, which is that these are children. They're not even young adults, they're very much children. Even 14 year olds are pathetic, miserable little creatures who spend their tiny lives in an anxious, hormonal haze, consuming the raw sewage that congeals on the bottom of the TikTok ecosystem while their brains slowly develop towards the point where they'll eventually become real people. They should not be remotely threatening to any adult with normal, healthy ego development.
Last edited:
Citation very much fucking needed
Leibniz, Gottfried W. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil. 1710.
For criticism, see
Voltaire. Candide. 1759.
"I'm not reading things into what you said... but I think you're only saying that because of assumptions of things I think you believe without you having said them."
Yup, mmhmm, got it.
Yes you did.
Go outside, find a random stranger, say hi.
Harsh but true.
