Funny events in anti-woke world

[Dwarvenhobble]

If it was just a book being pulled it wouldn't be this big a deal. Individual cases aren't the point because while they're still bad, they're Individual cases. This event has nothing to do with a book or pulling a book, it's about a reprehensible law being used to threaten a teacher who isn't even pushing a book. Sex scenes don't even enter into it.

Except her list contained the book along with the QR code to access said book along with others allegedly.

Also school library not a public one

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Was the teacher actually pushing that particular book, or was it just on the list of banned books? And how big is the list?

My understanding.

20 books long so far.

The teacher posted a poster with a QR code on saying something like

"Read the books your parents and the school don't want you to

*List of books*

Scan this QR code for access"

 

[Hades]

And when the argument is in relation to children and young teens and the argument is over giving them unsupervised access to material that has been deemed inappropriate for them it's hilarious how self proclaimed "Progressives" keep wondering and why they keep been accused of being groomers.

Maybe that would have been a valid argument if the things the conservatives deem inappropriate weren't always so silly. Them deeming a book inappropriate just because it has two boyfriends instead of a boyfriend and a girlfriend just makes them look spiteful, oppressive and wildly out of touch.

The things the right wants to deem inappropriate are just things that they desire to make socially inappropriate and there's no reason why people should help them do it. Its just a front for their cultural war rather than any genuine concern about children.

Also its hilarious that the people most hypersensitive about allegedly ''inappropriate'' subjects tend to have a lot of literal groomers within their ranks.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Also its hilarious that the people most hypersensitive about allegedly ''inappropriate'' subjects tend to have a lot of literal groomers within their ranks.

"If I tell these fools that all those people are child diddlers, then they'll have their backs turned when I come along."

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

In short, it's filled with things you don't like or respect.

To put it bluntly: that's quite closely related to the core point of the list. If the "banned books" list only contained things that are now considered uncontroversial... it would be utterly pointless.

Gender Queer is on there because it was the most objected-to, most banned book over a particular period. It exactly fits the criteria and entire reason for the list's existence. It's literally the point.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Schools have limited budgets for their libraries so they will have to prioritise and it's really not a good or smart move for activists to promote activist books as must have books for school libraries. Not least because you actually want the kids to read the books and importantly for them to be appropriate or somewhat appropriate to them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Because an identity is what allows you to exist as an individual within the world.

A newborn baby doesn't have a conscious mind. It has senses and it can feel, but it can't make sense of any of the things it feels. It experiences pleasure when feeding, but it can't distinguish between the object giving the pleasure and the body receiving it. It isn't aware of having a body at all.

At some point in human development that baby becomes conscious of a distinction between itself and the world around it. It realizes that the thing that gives it pleasure is outside of itself, and by extension it begins to develop the understanding that it is a distinct object. At around two years old, it begins to recognize this object (its body) in a mirror. By around four or five years old, it has begun to develop a basic theory of mind. It understands that it has internal thoughts which are distinct from its external body, and on a very basic level that the bodies around it also have internal thoughts. Thus, it can figure out that the body it sees in the mirror is what other people see when they look at it. It is a unique individual among other unique individuals, similar to them but not exactly the same as them.

Identity isn't just a set of arbitrary categories that we place ourselves in, it is a basic, fundamental and involuntary recognition of our position within the world. That five year old child knows whether it has been assigned as male or female based on the appearance of its body. It knows that it is supposed to be similar to people of the same sex and a distinct from people of the opposite sex, and because children are finely-honed machines for observing and learning behavior, it can also infer from the behavior of those around it what this distinction means for its position in the world.

That child is also, in all likelihood, already well on the way to figuring out how it feels about that position.

To be a person, you also need to not be any other person. That is a "restriction" and you could, if you wanted, frame it as "repressive", but doing so is ultimately meaningless because there isn't any alternative to being a person. Other than dying, I guess.



Perhaps you could deign to credit others with the same ability.

Queer life is harder in some ways and some people break under that hardness, but it can also be extremely joyful, liberating, empowering and beautiful. It is a life none of us chose but which is worth choosing.

Think about it this way. You may not actually like the social visibility of queer people, but you need us. You need us because if we didn't exist and if we weren't visible you would have nothing to measure yourself against. You can only pretend to be "normal" or claim this bizarre value you place on being part of the majority as long as there is a minority.

We, however, had to get used to not being normal. We had to build a self and a happiness separate from the value placed on normality, and as a result we don't need to define ourselves in relation to you. You are dependent on us, but we don't need you at all.

The fact that you live in fear that "normal" people will repress their own identities out of existence by pretending to be queer or trans, to the point of suffering discrimination and hardship, is just telling on yourself. If you really believed that your life was joyful, if you really believed that it was sufficient to make you happy, you shouldn't need to worry about that.



Me too.

That emotion does not require you to have sex with someone, and it certainly doesn't require you to only have sex with someone. I certainly don't see how it justifies intentionally living a "tragic" existence.

Ok sorry but I have to call you out on this based on Piaget's theories which form the basis of educational psychology. A Baby is conscious and does have a conscious mind it doesn't however have a mind with an understand of the concept of self. A Baby still develops schema (understanding of systems and processes) but it's the fundamental understanding and building blocks of what we would consider understanding of systems. A baby may understand if I throw x toy on the floor my parent will pick it back up and give it to me, so they will repeat it as it's a fun game to them. They will understand basic associations say a feeling or sensation with expectations. Lets say their mother always wear a certain perfume they'll recognise that in connection with their mother or say a certain sound before they get fed they'll learn to recognise that.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Maybe that would have been a valid argument if the things the conservatives deem inappropriate weren't always so silly. Them deeming a book inappropriate just because it has two boyfriends instead of a boyfriend and a girlfriend just makes them look spiteful, oppressive and wildly out of touch.

The things the right wants to deem inappropriate are just things that they desire to make socially inappropriate and there's no reason why people should help them do it. Its just a front for their cultural war rather than any genuine concern about children.

Also its hilarious that the people most hypersensitive about allegedly ''inappropriate'' subjects tend to have a lot of literal groomers within their ranks.

And you know the illustrations of giving a blowjob to a strap on among other illustrations lol.

If this were over a public library I'd say it was stupid. It's over a school library in this case. What in the initial report said was a K-12 school so Kindergarten (4-5 year olds) to 18.

So can some-one please put forward why this book needs to be in a school library?

If you can then can you then please argue why books with other content inappropriate for such an age group shouldn't be? I mean Chuck Tingle books or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or books with titles like "Daddy No" and "Touched but not by an angel".

 

[crimson5pheonix]

And you know the illustrations of giving a blowjob to a strap on among other illustrations lol.

If this were over a public library I'd say it was stupid. It's over a school library in this case. What in the initial report said was a K-12 school so Kindergarten (4-5 year olds) to 18.

So can some-one please put forward why this book needs to be in a school library?

If you can then can you then please argue why books with other content inappropriate for such an age group shouldn't be? I mean Chuck Tingle books or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or books with titles like "Daddy No" and "Touched but not by an angel".

Nobody tried to get any book into a school library. This is a red herring.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nobody tried to get any book into a school library. This is a red herring.

But that's where this weird argument has gone to.

Teacher allegedly puts up a poster telling her pupils where they can sign up to a free library service and access said banned books with them allegedly listed on the poster.

The issue being they're books that are banned from the school libraries by the school board.

The teacher, after a parent complaint to the school board, quit before there was any investigation into conduct or anything and threw up a big thing about refusing to work under the conditions of not being able to give students access to those books in the school.

What the discussion has expanded to now seemingly is people pushing for and against access to books in school libraries.

My stance being not all books belong on a school library. A public library yes sure but not a school one.

 

[Trunkage]

ROFL, and it'll be a greater day when you and others realise doing the same in return is not what affirmative action should be and it's highly patronising along with being something that's been going on for years in various places and called out for the patronising racism of low expectations that it is.

Hell I listened to a Radio comedy from 1992 the other day and even back then they were taking the piss out of it.

Sir Lenny Henry has been mocking that tokenism idea for years.

In the original Disney cartoon Ariel, no one even considered making her anything other than white. Because all the other Disney princesses were white beforehand

I don't know what you think tokenism is. Or identify politics. Or patronising. (Because your definitions change rapidly when questioned). But picking the cartoon Ariel as white was very patronising. And tokenistic. It was the Disney saying that they needed to satisfy the white people quota. Just like The Predator, Terminator, Alien, Die Hard and Top Gun were. All are tokenistic. All are patronising. The pick a white person not for talent reasons. They pick them to appease you and your identity politics

It's Hollywood. It designed that way. It always has been

 

[Trunkage]

But that's where this weird argument has gone to.

Teacher allegedly puts up a poster telling her pupils where they can sign up to a free library service and access said banned books with them allegedly listed on the poster.

The issue being they're books that are banned from the school libraries by the school board.

The teacher, after a parent complaint to the school board, quit before there was any investigation into conduct or anything and threw up a big thing about refusing to work under the conditions of not being able to give students access to those books in the school.

What the discussion has expanded to now seemingly is people pushing for and against access to books in school libraries.

My stance being not all books belong on a school library. A public library yes sure but not a school one.

Most banned books happened due to culture war reasons. Not because they shouldn't be near kids

Maybe, when people do culture war stuff, they should target the right things

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

 

[Trunkage]

View attachment 7087

Shapiro is just doing identity politics. The really vapid kind

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But that's where this weird argument has gone to.

It's there because it's where right wingers want it to be. Because otherwise they'd be arguing against library cards and it outs them as the jackboots they are.

 

[Dalisclock]

View attachment 7087

Ben Shapiro doesn't know Jack shit about the military and it shows.

Maybe he should take a look at how well the "Super patriotic, Super Masculine" Russian Army is doing right now in Ukraine.

 

[Kae]

Imagine caring about the optics of a genocidal fascist organization like the US Army.

 

[Trunkage]

Imagine caring about the optics of a genocidal fascist organization like the US Army.

What Shapiro said has got nothing to do with the armed forces. It's about dictating how everyone should live. He does not care one iota about them

 

[Silvanus]

Still designed to look like one and based on what I saw coloured to look like one too.

Not really interested in your reasons for considering it the same. You repeatedly accused me of "lying" when I told you there weren't any genitals and that it was a rubber toy. Gonna walk that back now we know you were just mistaken?

So you'd be fine to have young teens reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and it's graphic rape scenes because they're not sexual?

Love the idea you consider "graphic rape" to be equal in severity to someone consensually putting a rubber dildo in their mouth. Really have to wonder how your mind works to draw that equivalence.

To answer your question: I wouldn't want a teacher suspended for pointing 14-18 year olds to a library that contained the book. You know, the actual situation that happened.

 

[Silvanus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Schools have limited budgets for their libraries so they will have to prioritise and it's really not a good or smart move for activists to promote activist books as must have books for school libraries. Not least because you actually want the kids to read the books and importantly for them to be appropriate or somewhat appropriate to them.

I missed this before.

But no, the teacher was not "promoting activist books as must-have in school libraries". This whole incident isn't even about the introduction of books to a school library.

The state introduced legislation that books containing themes that might be offensive or upsetting must be covered. She complied, but also provided a QR code that directed students to the "banned books list", which is a nationally-recognised list and has been for years. It also contained information for applying for a card at the local public library. She was then suspended, and then she resigned.

So: nothing that would even impact the school budget at all. No demanding that books be added. It was a direction to a public library, as well as a link to the banned books list.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

In the original Disney cartoon Ariel, no one even considered making her anything other than white. Because all the other Disney princesses were white beforehand

All 2 of them.......

Yes I went back and looked.

Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella were the two before it.

I don't know what you think tokenism is. Or identify politics. Or patronising. (Because your definitions change rapidly when questioned). But picking the cartoon Ariel as white was very patronising. And tokenistic. It was the Disney saying that they needed to satisfy the white people quota. Just like The Predator, Terminator, Alien, Die Hard and Top Gun were. All are tokenistic. All are patronising. The pick a white person not for talent reasons. They pick them to appease you and your identity politics

It's Hollywood. It designed that way. It always has been

Funny story, you know why it's a white woman playing Vasquez in Aliens? Because no Hispanic women turned up to the audition.

Also you've failed to make an actual argument here, hell you've made a self defeating argument really because new Aerial represents no-one because black women don't have naturally red hair. So how is Aerial representing anyone in the live action version again?