The cancel culture is getting out of control

#2,379
#2,379
n_huffhines said:
What's in the bill keeps changing. Vague language is no bueno and I was completely opposed to the old language and now I don't know how I feel.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't say "don't say gay" anywhere in the bill.

Moreover, I'd really like to know which parts in particular they object too.

Seems like they would have some sort of statement on the matter except "we object to the bill."
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#2,381
#2,381
Grand Vol said:
Still doesn't say "don't say gay" anywhere in the bill.

Moreover, I'd really like to know which parts in particular they object too.

Seems like they would have some sort of statement on the matter except "we object to the bill."
Click to expand...

Who said it did? Nobody that I'm aware of has said that the bill says "don't say gay". And again, Disney is just referring to it by the name that people are calling it. IDK the bill number (which they also stated) and I didn't know the other manipulative name for it was. You communicate best with people by using the labels that they use and not labels that they don't use.

It's really not hard to find what people's gripes are, and I already told you what I think was a very valid gripe which was the language was too vague. They improved on that substantially with a couple drafts, so it's a good thing people were fussing.
 
#2,383
#2,383
utvolpj said:
Fixed. It was written to target and insult
Click to expand...

Target and insult whom?

Because, again, if it wasn't a big deal, people should have rolled their eyes and scoffed at yet another useless law as 85 said.

So, you have to ask yourself the great "why" and it's not because it's insulting or targeting. Why the opposition to the bill in the first place? It damn well could have been just as useless as any other mundane law passed countless times before by a State Legislature. Yet, the outrage from the left and twisting what's actually in the bill tends to raise red flags.

As stated earlier, with such broad support for the bill from both sides of the political aisle, this is not a hill to die on.
 
#2,384
#2,384
n_huffhines said:
Who said it did? Nobody that I'm aware of has said that the bill says "don't say gay". And again, Disney is just referring to it by the name that people are calling it. IDK the bill number (which they also stated) and I didn't know the other manipulative name for it was. You communicate best with people by using the labels that they use and not labels that they don't use.

It's really not hard to find what people's gripes are, and I already told you what I think was a very valid gripe which was the language was too vague. They improved on that substantially with a couple drafts, so it's a good thing people were fussing.
Click to expand...

So...

Why exactly is Disney objecting to the bill?
 
#2,385
#2,385
Grand Vol said:
Target and insult whom?

Because, again, if it wasn't a big deal, people should have rolled their eyes and scoffed at yet another useless law as 85 said.

So, you have to ask yourself the great "why" and it's not because it's insulting or targeting. Why the opposition to the bill in the first place? It damn well could have been just as useless as any other mundane law passed countless times before by a State Legislature. Yet, the outrage from the left and twisting what's actually in the bill tends to raise red flags.

As stated earlier, with such broad support for the bill from both sides of the political aisle, this is not a hill to die on.
Click to expand...

Still asking when it's been laid out, LOL.
 
#2,394
#2,394
Orangeslice13 said:
So what’s your small problem with it?
Click to expand...

It’s vague and overly broad, which will have a chilling effect on situations where it’s actually appropriate for a teacher to intervene.

3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
Click to expand...

This is the section of the bill getting attention.

The section prohibits three types of classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties:
1. Sexual orientation in k-3
2. Gender identity in k-3
3. In a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally approrpriate for students in accordance with state standards.

The first two sections have the same flaw in that they prohibit broad topics without prudent exceptions.

The third is worse in that it expands the lack of clarity in 1 and 2 to all grades, K-12, creating an uncertainty about where liability ends. Perhaps there are guidelines to address what is age appropriate regarding these topics, but that would mean this law was redundant, so I doubt it.
 
#2,395
#2,395
RockyTop85 said:
It’s vague and overly broad, which will have a chilling effect on situations where it’s actually appropriate for a teacher to intervene.



This is the section of the bill getting attention.

The section prohibits three types of classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties:
1. Sexual orientation in k-3
2. Gender identity in k-3
3. In a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally approrpriate for students in accordance with state standards.

The first two sections have the same flaw in that they prohibit broad topics without prudent exceptions.

The third is worse in that it expands the lack of clarity in 1 and 2 to all grades, K-12, creating an uncertainty about where liability ends. Perhaps there are guidelines to address what is age appropriate regarding these topics, but that would mean this law was redundant, so I doubt it.
Click to expand...
So you have no issues with removing the topic you just would prefer it were more clearly defined?

Would you agree that the topic is the responsibility of the parent and not the school system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#2,396
#2,396
RockyTop85 said:
It’s vague and overly broad, which will have a chilling effect on situations where it’s actually appropriate for a teacher to intervene.



This is the section of the bill getting attention.

The section prohibits three types of classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties:
1. Sexual orientation in k-3
2. Gender identity in k-3
3. In a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally approrpriate for students in accordance with state standards.

The first two sections have the same flaw in that they prohibit broad topics without prudent exceptions.

The third is worse in that it expands the lack of clarity in 1 and 2 to all grades, K-12, creating an uncertainty about where liability ends. Perhaps there are guidelines to address what is age appropriate regarding these topics, but that would mean this law was redundant, so I doubt it.
Click to expand...

This is after they made it more specific, too.
 
#2,397
#2,397
Orangeslice13 said:
So you have no issues with removing the topic you just would prefer it were more clearly defined?

Would you agree that the topic is the responsibility of the parent and not the school system?
Click to expand...
Basically, yes. It’s the same gripe I have with the critical race theory stuff. It’s essentially the same law.

I 100% agree it’s the responsibility of the parent. So are discussions about sex and I learned nothing about sex from my parents.



I thought a slight twist on this thread gave a pretty good example. I don’t mind removing “Heather has Two Mommies” from the curriculum, but the situation described in the book has to be becoming more common and the way it’s addressed, according to Malor, is wholesome. The book gets challenged a lot so you have to assume that a teacher responding that way to that circumstance in real life would be subject to suit. Whether or not the suit would ultimately be successful, it still has the same chilling effect as SLAPP suits. And that’s a problem (why we have a trend towards anti-SLAPP laws). Allowing “Heather” to be ostracized by her peers because their parents are incapable of addressing the issue isn’t good policy.

Also, if Heather walks in on her uncle Sally in the bathroom and tells your kid’s class that Sally is a woman who has a penis, now your kids are learning about transgenderism from the imagination of an 8 year old because some Karen might sue the teacher.
 
#2,398
#2,398
RockyTop85 said:
Basically, yes. It’s the same gripe I have with the critical race theory stuff. It’s essentially the same law.

I 100% agree it’s the responsibility of the parent. So are discussions about sex and I learned nothing about sex from my parents.



I thought a slight twist on this thread gave a pretty good example. I don’t mind removing “Heather has Two Mommies” from the curriculum, but the situation described in the book has to be becoming more common and the way it’s addressed, according to Malor, is wholesome. The book gets challenged a lot so you have to assume that a teacher responding that way to that circumstance in real life would be subject to suit. Whether or not the suit would ultimately be successful, it still has the same chilling effect as SLAPP suits. And that’s a problem (why we have a trend towards anti-SLAPP laws). Allowing “Heather” to be ostracized by her peers because their parents are incapable of addressing the issue isn’t good policy.

Also, if Heather walks in on her uncle Sally in the bathroom and tells your kid’s class that Sally is a woman who has a penis, now your kids are learning about transgenderism from the imagination of an 8 year old because some Karen might sue the teacher.
Click to expand...


the book should be challenged.
In your example it’s still not the responsibility of the school system. Policy or otherwise. I suspect your example would become the responsibility of law enforcement.
 
#2,399
#2,399
Orangeslice13 said:
the book should be challenged.
In your example it’s still not the responsibility of the school system. Policy or otherwise. I suspect your example would become the responsibility of law enforcement.
Click to expand...
I think it’s stupid to challenge the book, but I don’t really care about it. I’m talking about situation described in the book. It’s absolutely the responsibility of the school system to provide “Heather” with a learning environment where she’s free from harassment by other students.

Law enforcement has nothing to do with this. It’s a civil cause of action. I guess if there’s something good that can be said about it, they aren’t ****ing arresting teachers like Tennessee wants to. That would be a mess.
 
#2,400
#2,400
RockyTop85 said:
I think it’s stupid to challenge the book, but I don’t really care about it. I’m talking about situation described in the book. It’s absolutely the responsibility of the school system to provide “Heather” with a learning environment where she’s free from harassment by other students.

Law enforcement has nothing to do with this. It’s a civil cause of action.
Click to expand...
The schools fail every day at preventing harassment on any number of issues. Heather’s situation isn’t grounds for interrupting parental rights and/or decisions on when to discuss the topic.
And
You’ve lost your mind if you think an 8 year old starts talking about seeing a penis at school and law enforcement isn’t immediately involved.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top