Canceled: co-opt

[sologdin]

There is a big difference between teaching kids aged 5 general concepts such as fairness and trying to instruct them on historical events to which they cannot possibly contextualise or understand fully. 
 

tell that to the jingos who want them to pledge allegiance to flags and sing national anthems and whatnot. 

[Zorral]

Over the past decade, the Anti-Defamation League has counted about 450 U.S. murders committed by political extremists. Of these 450 killings, right-wing extremists committed about 75 percent. Islamic extremists were responsible for about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists were responsible for 4 percent. Nearly half of the murders were specifically tied to white supremacists

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-shootings.html

 

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, sologdin said:

tell that to the jingos who want them to pledge allegiance to flags and sing national anthems and whatnot. 

Yes we can teach 5 year olds about the Battle of Baltimore -- but only if we focus on the flag.  After all, children need to learn about the cunning use of flags...

 

[Zorral]

Spare the children's ears about the violations and horrors of, o being bombed, families lynched, entire communities torn down and burned while the people in them are massacred.  Yet, somehow, these things are done and happen to the children too.  If we don't say the words they won't notice, I guess.

Above all treat our persistence in pretense of incomprehension and demonstrations of foolness with respect.  Because, you know, a grown ass man, holding hands over eyes and saying I'm not here is childish, thus I am a child, who must be spared.

 

[Ran]

You know, there are people who are genuine experts in child psychology and pedagogy who tend to be a lot less strident with their opinions on the topic of when it's the right time to teach children things.

LIke, this oped discusses Israel's policy of teaching the Holocaust in K-12 and in Kindergarten it is very, very narrowly discussed and dealt with with a very light touch. And in fact the decision to include kindergarten in the guidelines seems to have been motivated by some teachers/schools in Israel going well beyond that for such young students, which education experts felt was inappropriate for children that age.

There's a big difference between 5 years old and 7 years old, developmentally. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

There's a big difference between 5 years old and 7 years old, developmentally.

That's all well and good, but the basis of this discussion was the Don't Say Gay bill, which prohibits instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade.  So the bill itself is treating 5 to 8 year olds the same.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

There is a big difference between teaching kids aged 5 general concepts such as fairness and trying to instruct them on historical events to which they cannot possibly contextualise or understand fully. 
 

tell that to the jingos who want them to pledge allegiance to flags and sing national anthems and whatnot. 

@Heartofice

It’s interesting how your confused by such a proposition. 
 

If you were consistent you’d have no problem with ban in schools against any encouragement/proclamation  of love or devotion for ones country towards young children in the classroom.

But instead we get a confused emoji.

I’m sure you have very non-homophobic reasons for this reaction.

[sologdin]

instead we get a confused emoji.

one wonders if overuse of the confused response results from conservatism's generic inflexibility or a more particular procrustean obduracy.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, DMC said:

through third grade.

It should always be noted, it can also apply all the way up to high school.

It gives a stipulation of any instruction on sexuality or sexual identity that’s not age appropriate to be banned.

They don’t define what age appropriate would mean.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It should always be noted, it can also apply all the way up to high school.

It gives a stipulation of any instruction on sexuality or sexual identity that’s not age appropriate to be banned.

They don’t define what age appropriate would mean.

Yep.  Coupled with the ability for parents to sue based on such vague language, it's helicopter parents on steroids.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

instead we get a confused emoji.

one wonders if overuse of the confused response results from conservatism's generic inflexibility or a more particular procrustean obduracy.

Liberals often assume malice from conservatives when they what looks like blatant hypocrisy.

, but often I think it’s more honest cognitive dissonance.

Their politics are not politics they’re just common sense, a totally objective understanding of the world whose promotion shouldn’t cause any controversy.

[Ran]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's all well and good, but the basis of this discussion was the Don't Say Gay bill, which prohibits instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade.  So the bill itself is treating 5 to 8 year olds the same.

Oh, sure, these bills are dumb. But the topic has turned to other things relevant to international crowds, and that's what I'm responding to.

I do think that these bills in the US are kneejerk reactionary messaging crap and the problems they claim to address are being blown out of proportion, both in frequency and in the actual response.

[DaveSumm]

56 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m sure you have very non-homophobic reasons for this reaction.

Do you think you’d be able to try a little harder with regards to @mormont ‘s suggestion for posting:

Quote

I think we should all do our best to avoid rudeness, or the appearance of rudeness: but also read others' posts as charitably as possible and not make assumptions about things that are notoriously difficult to interpret online, like the intent of the user.

I’m not sure if calling someone a homophobe, even if cloaked in sarcasm, is acceptable.

[Ran]

42 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I’m not sure if calling someone a homophobe, even if cloaked in sarcasm, is acceptable.

It is not acceptable to insult other members, no.

[sologdin]

i'd be cautious to avoid falling for the ideological sleight of mind that contends identifying an offense, even if somewhat discourteously directed to the person ("you're a homophobe") as opposed to the discourse ("that's homophobic speech," or, as here, "homophobic reasons"), is worse than committing the offense. this ruse is of course itself the topos of a certain lineage's inflexibility.

[Ran]

 

17 minutes ago, sologdin said:

is worse than committing the offense.

Do you propose that an offense has been committed?

[Varysblackfyre321]

51 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i'd be cautious to avoid falling for the ideological sleight of mind that contends identifying an offense, even if somewhat discourteously directed to the person ("you're a homophobe") as opposed to the discourse ("that's homophobic speech," or, as here, "homophobic reasons"), is worse than committing the offense. this ruse is of course itself the topos of a certain lineage's inflexibility.

Probably. But a degree of civility on public forums like this should  be enforced, with mods cracking the whip away from personal slights to rigorous, substantive debate

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

i'd be cautious to avoid falling for the ideological sleight of mind that contends identifying an offense, even if somewhat discourteously directed to the person ("you're a homophobe") as opposed to the discourse ("that's homophobic speech," or, as here, "homophobic reasons"), is worse than committing the offense. this ruse is of course itself the topos of a certain lineage's inflexibility.

Did anyone suggest it was worse than actual homophobia? Of course not. It’s just against forum rules (and if you don’t think the intent was to imply HoI was homophobic then I have a bridge to sell you). I’ll be sure to call out any actual homophobia if I see it.

[Ran]

Lets move away from the meta discussion about rules or posters and just get back to the topic.

[Zorral]

The youngest children killed in the Sandy Hook School shootings were six.  I'm sure their schoolmates who survived that attack by a young white guy with guns had no idea what happened to their dead schoolmates. 

School kids of every age in this country have been targets of white men trying to kill a bunch of them for decades now.  They participate from the earliest years in hiding from shooters and have lock down drills.  Yet there are people here who with straight faces say they are too young to learn about these matters.