Looks as though you're by yourself now.
In any case, I clearly said I "couldn't" be arsed, while you're argument says otherwise.
This is why I don't give you much time TC. It's a circle of foolery.
I don't accept pedophillia either. What's the problem ?
You'd treat your average homosexual no differently than a pedophile?
This would be a very unideal time to start doing your signature dodge strats.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
I don't accept pedophillia either. What's the problem ?
You'd treat your average homosexual no differently than a pedophile?
This would be a very unideal time to start doing your signature dodge strats.
Yeah I don't accept pedophillia either.
What seems to be the problem ?
HA HA HA.
Ask me another question.
Damn, dude.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
I don't fuck with American radical feminists though and I don't fuck with any extremism like collective guilt movements etc. Victimism is bad. Abusing people for who they are is bad. Everybody chiiiiillll.
Radical feminists are rare though, far right people are way more common and even radical muslims.
They aren't that rare in the US depending on where you live, and so goes the US so too does the world.
Really? Please point me in the direction of some radical feminists. lol
Pretty much any liberal town with a college nearby's going to have it's share.
I only really had that presence quiet down in my life once I left school.
Liberal colleges are not the bulk of this country. : P
Nor do a lot of those women probably remain radical feminists. College kids tend to be a bit more gung-ho about their political beliefs. I mean, for fucks sake, the "hippie generation" destroyed the planet. lol I think you're assuming they exist in greater numbers than they do because the last time you were really actively social in your life, you were at a liberal college. That is not the world.
Spatial Mind said:I do hate it when transgenders read fictional books to elementary school kids and tell them how they choose their gender.This is actually something I somewhat agree with, the same way that I think making kids learn The Bible is wrong.Depends how they go about it. I mean, can discussing conceptions of gender, in general, really be compared to teaching the bible?As you say, it depends how they go about it, but I'd argue as a parallel that Christianity could have an equally soft hand about God as well.
It's attempting to package an idea to sell during the impressionable, formative years, and regardless of if it's progressive or regressive it falls under the same learning curve and conceptual hardening.In some sense I agree, but do you see formative propaganda as avoidable in our society?It's easier to avoid now that cable's not as dominant, but in it's place it's now multiple subcultural sources of propaganda rather than 'what's on tv'. Through the presentation of variety you can end up with a more well-rounded child, rather than presenting tons of media with elements in common as if to normalize it.
And yet now, it's twice as easy for them to cocoon themselves in an echo chamber of their choosing, or more likely at that young age, of their parents' choosing. The fact is, formative propaganda is fundamentally unavoidable. Children will consume the ideas around them, they can't live in a vacuum. I'd even say it's uncontrollable to a degree, without going full-on 1984. It makes sense to me that society looks for reasonable ways to tailor it. Obviously we can't just go around banning ideas willy nilly. It seems to me that the more sound option, is to ensure that certain ideas do reach them at all.
Theology is perfectly welcome in schools as long as no particular faith is being presented as fact.This is a sticky situation imo, as if they're too loud about it or otherwise have an administrative role that doesn't jive with the school itself it can lead to disciplinary action, much like how a teacher at my school was able to get away with covering '666' on someone's shirt from it being 'religious' in nature.Someone wearing a 666 shirt is not the same as a theology class. lolWoah woah, theology classes instead of just theology itself?
I've never seen theology taught in non-religious schools, barring colleges. At best there's maybe a History class or two where the teachers were a bit more bold, as otherwise it's an issue 'best left avoided' as a matter of liability risk.
It is usually college, yes. I've seen it in some of the more well-off highschools as well. My point was not that theology classes happen in elementary school. lol Merely explaining why I think your comparison of progressive gender discussion to bible study is inaccurate.
But yes, sometimes teachers and administrators break rules for their personal beliefs. I'd say that's a separate issue.It was seen as presenting religious iconography at school, and if she couldn't spout Christian propaganda then she won't allow her students to do so either.
She actually won that case when it was brought to the principle, and the kid had to wear duct tape on those portions for the rest of the day.
That doesn't surprise me, a similar thing happened to me in middle school, but I'd still call it irrelevant to he point at hand.
Gender should be no different. It's one thing to tell a child that scientific evidence exists for something for which it doesn't, or to openly push a political agenda.Again, depends how they go about it.
To preach tolerance is one thing, as that's more about how one handles another's choices as well as the cultural expectation of how others will respond to your own, but it's another to push the idea at people as if the trans question applies to a greater number of people than I'd argue that it genuinely does.
It's not hard to identify with pretty much anything that hits us in key points in life, it's a large part of how Disney and shit have spawned furries. If this isn't handled right we could end up pushing transtrender movements further, rather than offering help to those who were already saddled with the issue.What, you think they're going into classrooms and telling kids that they're transgender? lolNo, but they're presenting it as a general question rather than a disorder or condition that only spans (according to studies anyway) to around 5% of people. When trended like this it's liable to be modeled off of, rather than tolerated as not a big deal, as hype rather than as acceptance.
To illustrate my point, should we have people go to schools to ask if everyone's ADD or ODD?
I'd argue that maybe we should. As long as it's presented realistically and responsibly. Disorder is a far end of the mental/behavioral spectrum, but it is a spectrum nonetheless. One that reflects on all our minds, that can be used to help most people, disordered or not, understand their mental faculties and be better adjusted to life. In the same strain, I'd argue that gender discussion itself, from a progressive and tolerant standpoint, applies to most or all people, even if they aren't full-blown transgender. Hence, we obviously shouldn't simply be telling kids they're probably trans (which I doubt anyone is doing : P), but an open-minded discussion of gender and what it means to our identity and lifestyle, is a perfectly reasonable thing to have with young people who are figuring out themselves, the world, and their place in it, and are otherwise inevitably being bombarded by the rigid ideas of whatever environment they're growing up in.
It's entirely another to tell them that gender is not the same as sex, and to present the possibility that they are free to choose their lifestyle, related to it, regardless of sex.While I generally agree with preaching tolerance, I'd prefer it be presented as an aesthetic non-issue similarly to how obesity is treated now, rather than have it become a furthered matter of nurture.As would I, but that ignores the context of the world we live in.I don't think it'd be that difficult to float tolerance-driven media, rather than forcing their hand, such as how Hey Arnold handled it.
We need flawed LGBTQ and racial characters if we're going to even the playing field, rather than presenting them as psychics, media-savvy snarkers, or freedom fighters. If we keep presenting the 'safe' demographics with flaws and the 'unsafe' demographics as untouchable it'll continue to sell as untrue to life, much like the trend on family cartoons to make the fathers bumbling and stupid while the mothers are on top of everything (Rick and Morty, Family Guy, Simpsons, Fairly Odd Parents, I could go on and on). Flipping the genders on those shows would play out as backwards as All In The Family, and when flaws are applied to only some demographics and not others it implies that 'white men' for example need flaws to be on equal footing with their racially and sexually handicapped team members.
I can't speak to Fairly Odd Parents or Family Guy, but despite being generally competent, I'd hardly say characters like Beth, Marge, and Francine are without flaws.
That said, I mostly agree with your point. The logic of having equally flawed and depthy characters is obviously sound, and I could even bring up more issues with not doing it. However, I also I think many shows and movies do make that happen, and simply fly under the radar in discussions like this, because it's easier to think of examples of the problem, than simply a decently written character who also happens to be a member of a socially oppressed group. Community is a prime example, in many ways that show could be defined by its flawed social underdog characters, and it was quite a successful show. The fact that failure to create these kinds of characters has become a noticeable pattern at all is an issue, but I don't think that issue is representative of media, or the political situation, nor do I think it'll become such.
Bad writing is bad writing, and we have different phases of it depending on the social climate of the time. I'm not too worried about us getting past this particular media hurdle.
The path of tolerance will lead to gender liquidation, the irrelevance of it's roles, while pushing the LGBTQ message too hard risks furthering the perception of gender roles at all. They should be taught that it's okay to be themselves within a large span of options, rather than being confronted with yes or no question scenarios on gender where they may end up taking a path that's not for them, potentially even locking into it like we already see happening with formative component subcultures.Do you see this as worse than any other way that kids are pushed to "be themselves"?
Yes, as even if this becomes acceptable behavior in society it still means people taking risks as a matter of status quo.
Risk is always present.