Yeah, wouldn't want to... uhrm, become one of the most well regarded and renowned playwrights in the world (?)
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
OMG, the bills don't ban CRT, read them.
Again, I didn't say that. I think the only clip in the episode (as I skipped around just now, but could've missed something) of a politician saying anything about CRT is Ted Cruz and I don't see any clip of a politician saying they banned CRT in schools in the episode. That's not to say those clips don't exist, but I didn't see them in the John Oliver episode. I don't really care about the "fluff" of issues and what's playing on CNN/FOX daily as I just look into the issue and the whole CRT issue is like the biggest nothing-burger on both sides.
Anyway, that's not the point regardless. I said that John Oliver said that states have banned CRT being taught in schools via bills/laws, which isn't true.
The video shows the woman saying she's pushing for a gay agenda and unless she's the creator/writer of these shows or movies, that means an external person is pushing agendas to the creators. I wasn't putting on the same level, I said I'm against pushing an agenda outside of the creator's vision regardless of how minor or major it is, it's a simple principle to go by. I am a deontologist after all.
My fault, I misread that. I thought you said you can't make art without pushing something (I missed the teaching part). You can't teach something without technically not pushing something because that's kinda impossible. It's like teaching Moby Dick or any famous novel and teaching someone all the major themes of the work but missing some lesser or more nuanced themes. And, yes, by selecting what themes to talk about, you're pushing them while ignoring the other themes that aren't as major. If you wanna say a novel is just about this one theme because you like that theme, you are pushing an agenda in your teaching by not giving the other themes (that you may not like) any discussion or highlight. You can teach something without pushing an agenda well enough, it's never going to be perfect obviously but a good teacher will try and do a pretty good job of it.
Not by name, but some potentially do by description.
Some bills are relatively innocuous, that no teaching should "compel" a student to blah blah blah, which clearly leaves the teaching of such things open just so long as (for instance) no student is unduly expected to voice their opinions. Well, okay. Some go further, and effectively say that no teaching materials should "direct" a student to offer a personal view. So for instance, for an essay assignment on race relations, where it might be normal to invite students to offer a personal assessment according to their judgement, in this case it could be illegal to do so. This strikes me as a restriction. Clauses in other bills are potentially quite problematic for teaching CRT. I suspect some could effectively outlaw it, or at minimum threaten expensive and difficult legal proceedings against educational establishments which could have a "chilling" effect that would dissuade some from even risking it. A concern is that some bills also seem to be very broad in terms of educational establishment and could include universities, where we should expect a higher standard of free discussion.
The main argument that these bills don't ban CRT is that they don't actually target CRT effectively at all, because very few if any of the clauses accurately describe CRT: they describe the weird boogeyman bogus CRT that many conservatives have assumed in lieu of the reality. In that sense, they attack a load of straw men that don't really matter to CRT, except for some points where they are sufficiently vague that they create restrictions and awkwardness for forms of intellectual enquiry rather wider than CRT.
That entirely depends on who you ask especially considering he nearly destroyed Theatre as an industry
As in it just doesn't do anything for them it's a case of "And next?"
I'm equating LGBTQQIAA2+ representation in media to Ice-cream flavours. Some people just don't enjoy some flavours. It's personal taste.
It's the IT crowd clip I showed before where Roy really isn't interested and knows the musical called Gay probably isn't something he's going to enjoy seeing.
Queer of Folk is award winning and hugely well regarded as a show, it's not for me though.
Twilight is hugely well regarded by it's fans and massively successful, it's not for me though.
Plenty of stuff isn't for me.
I figured as much, and as I stated, I'm not surprised. Try saying the same thing about people of color; 'I don't mind black people, but having them in movies is just not to my taste.' Now, if that sentence doesn't make your fucking skin crawl... I mean, I wish I could be even more surprised, but I wouldn't be really.
No, he didn't. That's just the kind of overblown line people come out with about major artistic figures.
Hey Phoenexings. All these anti-trans laws. You've 'read' them right? Do any of them actually use the word trans? Do they even particularly target trans? Or do they just talk about birth certificates?
Black Codes, like after reconstruction. They had laws targeted black people, right? Did they even use the various words and slurs for African Americans? It's the name, black codes. surely they where targeting black people right? You can add the Padame meme there... because all those racist laws never actually even specifically targeted blacks people... because that would have been illegal under the constitution. But, using the non-racist language in the law, the police (or Justice of the Peace in those times) could target African Americans
Yeah, you can target people without actually using racist words in laws. You can ban trans people by banning changes in birth certificates. You never even have to address them You can ban abortions by saying you will allow abortion up to 6 weeks. Just pick a time after most women find out they are pregnant. You can target CRT by banning a bunch of stuff, like books that you have earmarked as CRT. Now, in some ways you are right. They arent targeting CRT. They are just targeting the made up strawman of CRT that isnt actually related to CRT. It's like when they tried banning communism a bunch of times. They just never really bothered finding out what communism meant and the banning are thus not matched
Did you know, those amendments after the civil war that were meant to ban slavery. Well, they left a loophole and there was a ton of slavery right up until FDR who changed the law so he wouldn't look racist like the Japanese. It's almost like there is a narrative that goes with laws that falsifies what they are doing
You're talking to the type of person who'll argue that "stand your ground" laws aren't racist because they're not titled "go ahead and shoot up that car full of minorities, we got your back boo" laws.
Saw this video pop up in my feed today and found it interesting.
I've pondered this idea for a while in that the LBGT-activists have actually been doing more harm than good to their cause. Maybe they are aware of it, and are getting off on the attention they garner from these extreme viewpoints, or maybe it's a power trip being able to dictate who is part of the club or not. I don't really know because i don't have any dogs in the fight. This sort of ties together with other threads but because this is such a board video I thought it best to post it here.
Why is it that the LBGT community is so quick to tear apart people in their own club? Dave Chapelle's friend Daphne got dragged over the coals for their views despite being trans themselves. Sophia showcases in this video how the community digs at her because she isn't 100% on the side of every thing the activists push for?
The question has to be made, how can a community expect inclusion and acceptance, when they don't even support their own? If they can't accept and include the various views of people who fall into their own catagory, then how can they expect such things from the rest of the world? Which I suppose is fair that no group really does this. Everyone talks shit about their own group to some degree so maybe it's not a perfect one-to-one.
I've pondered this idea for a while in that the LBGT-activists have actually been doing more harm than good to their cause. Maybe they are aware of it, and are getting off on the attention they garner from these extreme viewpoints, or maybe it's a power trip being able to dictate who is part of the club or not. I don't really know because i don't have any dogs in the fight. This sort of ties together with other threads but because this is such a board video I thought it best to post it here.
Why is it that the LBGT community is so quick to tear apart people in their own club? Dave Chapelle's friend Daphne got dragged over the coals for their views despite being trans themselves. Sophia showcases in this video how the community digs at her because she isn't 100% on the side of every thing the activists push for?
The question has to be made, how can a community expect inclusion and acceptance, when they don't even support their own? If they can't accept and include the various views of people who fall into their own catagory, then how can they expect such things from the rest of the world? Which I suppose is fair that no group really does this. Everyone talks shit about their own group to some degree so maybe it's not a perfect one-to-one.
Yoi know what interesting. The 'Don't Say Gay' laws in Florida
As written, they aren't targeted at homosexual content. At all.
As it is written, it should also mean that we can't acknowledge that men grow breads and mums have babies. It should mean that we can't acknowledge marriage and that parents love each other
But everyone knows that the law will never be applied to hetero like that. That's been stated by the governor
But apparently this just happens for this law and not others. You cant look at the rhetoric surrounding the laws and figure out what's going on
Last edited:
That and they're not a hivemind. Everybody's got idiots, bro.
I mean I think 3rd grade and prior is probably just too early to talk about sex at all really. No matter which way the wind blows if im honest. If parents want to talk about sex and sexuality to their kids that early, then good for them, they should go ahead and do that then. Otherwise, sexual discourse should wait until, eh...8th grade? 9th? That's about right, though my high school didn't teach sexual health until 11th and i think it should be a little sooner than that because a bunch of cheerleaders got pregnant in 10th grade.
There's gotta be a sweet spot you know?
I learned what gay people were in 2nd or 3rd grade after other kids called me a fag for having long hair. My parents explained it to me in simple terms, knowing I was old enough to know I liked girls. After taking 2 seconds to process this, I was like, "When is Thundercats on?"
Let's give kids a measure of credit. They know romantic love and attraction are a thing, they just don't know what to do with those feelings yet.
I didn't vote for you.
Does any teacher talk about sex in grade 3 and under? Does not matter if it's hetero or homosexual. Show me where this happens
They may do child protection but even that does not include discussion of sex