So you're all in on "Liberal teachers are sexualising and grooming our kids!" hysteria?
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Seems a pretty selective argument. Where was that guy when Trump was presenting himself as a friend to the working class despite being about as anti working class as can be in both policies and background? Republicans in general like claiming they speak for the little guy despite being aggressively hostile to them. I never heard that guy complain about any of that.
Eh sorry, haven't read for a few days - so a bit delayed my reaction:
So... where is the context to this news-piece? What did he say? What was his speech about? And what did he do 3/4 of a century ago?
Or are we saying: Hey-ho, that guy fought on the wrong side as a young man (Under which circumstances?) Therefore everything he, for the rest of his life, is worthless, he has to be shunned and can never be heard and contribute anything ever again?
So... something like this NEEDS context. I need to know who he is, what he said, why it should matter to me. I can't just get a: "Here is a guy who did bad in his youth... HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO DID A BAD THING?" This is just weird.
Sorry this just got me (as a non-proud German, i of course had for example a grandfather who, you know, was drafted and captured and lived with a ruined leg and bad memories for fifty years and was distinctively non-evil (apparently)).
Feels like overly sensitive and judgmental. (It could very well be, that this guy is a monster, who hid from rightful consequences, and snaked his way into something and got praised unjustly - but i can't read about it in this screenshot, and nothing ist added by commentaries or such)
If it were just nudity, it wouldn't be a problem. There's tons of nudity in the world, and plenty of artistic, historical, and cultural reasons one might be exposed to it. This, and most of the books being challenged in schools right now, is not simply nudity, nor is it sex ed, it's sexuality. The author writes that the sight of naked women makes her feel so good, she wishes she had a girlfriend, and how she told a friend to prove their friendship by touching breasts. That's not making nudity less taboo or sexual, that's making nudity more sexual. That's not teaching kids healthy ideas about sex, those are unhealthy ideas about sex.
A) Anne Frank's sexual desires aren't basic features of the world.
B) You don't know what these parents are teaching their kids about sexuality, you are making huge assumptions.
This doesn't wash, when you consider that the ostensible reason for the ovation was his veteran status.
No, this issue is dumber than that. Most of the problem books are in schools because of teachers not realizing that an illustrated book can contain adult content. This Book is Gay talks about best practices for using Grindr, Gender Queer was written for and advertised to adults and the author never intended it for children, but both of those books have lots of pictures so they ended up in school libraries.
It's not hard to imagine what happened here with good intentions. Even the switch of Anne Frank's perspective on prostitutes, the author was probably thinking they wanted to represent the whole of her diary because that was their vision of Anne Frank, but be a little more sex positive about it because that's their views on sex. I'm sure it's the personal expression of the author, and not a conspiracy to groom kids. And then the schools see the Anne Frank graphic novel and assume it's perfect for their classroom probably without reading a single page. (I obviously disagree with an author who has personal views that lead to sexing up Anne Frank, but I don't think it's a plot to groom kids.)
The only wrong thing being done on purpose is after it's found that inappropriate content made it into schools, after parents say "hey, I don't want my kid finding this in the school library", when the culture war kicks in and demands those books be available to all children and anyone who disagrees is a book burning Nazi. Which is a shame, since those people have such a loud megaphone, many people only hear about book burning Nazis and don't realize there's genuinely objectionable content in schools. If you ask people if the book Gender Queer with a vague synopsis is appropriate for schools, you find a slim majority support it. If you show people the content, it's nearly unanimous opposition, even among lefties and liberals.
It is possible to have conflict and disagreement with good intentions on both sides, but that gets neither clicks nor votes, so any attempt to desexualize schools is going to get mega headlines in the left-leaning media.
Oh, it definitely is a selective argument. Most valid criticism of a politician is independent of party, but almost nobody is aiming at both.
Also, Trump is a Democrat anyway.
If you take her words as sex ed lessons, the lessons are that a) relationships are for seeing people naked whenever you want, and b) it's normal to coerce sexual interaction using social pressures.
I don't know the book so won't argue its details.
But it seems to be belletristic for teens. It is not meant to be used as sex-ed. Sex ed should be way more thorough, fact based and start sooner. The assumption would be that children who already had sex ed and know the theory get to read about someones personal experience and journey of self-discovery. At a time where they might have similar experiences.
I'm no historian, but I don't think you get into the Waffen SS by accident.
Originally it was volunteer only with heavy screening and only for "Aryans". Then the screening got laxer and people found new reasons why various poeple might be Aryans if one squinted hard enough. In the end they conscripted everyone they got like all the other branches. So you might indeed end up there by accident.
Not interested enough to look for that Ukrainian or his unit in particular, but he was probably one of those who joined willingly aiming for Ukrainian independence or out of hate for Russia.
Last edited:
It's not just North America.
Anti-gay discrimination not qualification for asylum, says Suella Braverman
The home secretary says fearing discrimination for being gay or a woman is not enough to qualify for refugee protection.
www.bbc.co.uk
A) The fact that teenage girls will have curiosity about sex and sexual matters, regardless of standing, race, class, and outside circumstance is however a basic feature of the world, which Anne Frank's experiences serve to highlight, thereby demonstrating to other teenage girls that what they're feeling is not unnatural or wrong, but something natural. The wise teacher will, of course, caution against mimicing Frank exactly.
B) You don't know what these parents are teaching their kids about maths, you are making huge assumptions.
It might not have been an accident, but it wasn't always voluntary.
Some of the foreign SS units were not always very "Nazi" either. The Germans were desperate for manpower, so where necessary made a lot of compromises on the normal indoctrination in order to get the locals to sign up. Some were pretty poor as frontline combat units, and mostly used for anti-partisan operations where they frequently did a lot of horrible things.
Last edited:
As an outsider looking in Texas banning Anne Frank adaptions over one page certainly seems petty and bizarre, and those pushing for it come off as clowns and freaks. Especially because I just don't buy the idea that those ''parental rights!'' folk genuinely think its '''''porn'''. It so very rarely is so why should they be genuine about it being '''''porn''' THIS time?
While the odd parent who also moonlight as the town drunk might be manipulated into going along with this, the stronger voices among them and especially the politicians pushing for it most certainly can't. To me it seems more like an excuse to ban a work with the message that torturing minority groups is wrong. Because if you're a party with rather...ahem ''tense'' relations with minorities that must be a very vexing message. Its not about ''porn''. Its about control, and about removing one more warning against abysmal treatment of minorities.
While the odd parent who also moonlight as the town drunk might be manipulated into going along with this, the stronger voices among them and especially the politicians pushing for it most certainly can't. To me it seems more like an excuse to ban a work with the message that torturing minority groups is wrong. Because if you're a party with rather...ahem ''tense'' relations with minorities that must be a very vexing message. Its not about ''porn''. Its about control, and about removing one more warning against abysmal treatment of minorities.
Donald Trump committed fraud as he built his real estate empire, New York judge rules
Judge refuses to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former US president of illegally inflating assets and net worth, as his lawyers say they’ll appeal
www.theguardian.com
There we go: Trump guilty of enormously overvaluing his assets and worth to financial institutions, constituting fraud.
Also: Anthony Ropa has resigned after cross-party pressure for the Nazi-in-Canadian-parliament debacle.
So why defend the firing of the teacher if it was the fault of administration?
I'm more interested in defending the removal of the book than of the teacher, but there are a couple potential reasons. On the subject of schools just letting things in unknowingly, the reporting says the syllabus for the class including that book was approved by the school, but they almost certainly didn't read it. Once they were aware of what was in it, they stopped the lesson and said the teacher would be apologizing. To my knowledge, that apology didn't happen, which probably means the teacher was doing the culture war thing and doubling down.
But also: https://kfdm.com/news/local/investi...dents-read-sexual-content-in-anne-frank-diary
If the teacher was making children read the controversial parts of the book out loud in front of their peers, maybe that is a pervert after all.
So, when are you gonna try and get GTA banned for sale? Like, this is just sad. And blatantly obvious that it wouldn't be an issue if she were talking about a dude
Last edited: