I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones!

[maiforpeace]

I demand that LastThursdayism be given equal time. But only in classes taught on Fridays.

So if I giggle at this, I'll be accused of ad homming?

Well, since I'm guilty anyway....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I demand that LastThursdayism be given equal time. But only in classes taught on Fridays.

So if I giggle at this, I'll be accused of ad homming?

Well, since I'm guilty anyway....

[maiforpeace]

As usual, all you can do is ad hom me.

Considering you've been calling me a liar for an entire page, I'd say I was pretty restrained.

I see you edited me "ad homming" you to me "calling you a liar for an entire page".

And where exactly have I called you liar?

Asking for evidence to this claim of yours

Nowadays, though, the educational material for grade schoolers gives prominent placement to gay couples, to the point where heterosexual marriages are portrayed as odd or inferior. That's not an accurate representation of reality, and it's really problematic for the education of heterosexual kids.

...and not just taking your word for it without evidence isn't calling you a liar. Those are your words, not mine.

Let's try another avenue. So, you don't have a scanner. If this bigotry towards heterosexuals does exist, you should be able to find at least one, if not plenty of examples online. If I didn't take you seriously, I wouldn't have bothered looking myself to find something. As it is, I have yet to find any concrete examples of what you are claiming, all I have found is the same thing you are doing, making wild claims without concrete evidence.

[hadespussercats]

Warren-- were you saying that handouts and such by the school are where the same-sex couples are being portrayed so frequently? I'm wondering, if that's the case, is it possible, that there's been an initiative to push for parity by playing up same-sex parents because there's still so little depiction of that in textbooks and other older print sources-- especially considering that Massachusetts led the country in promoting same sex marriage, so materials made for schools nationally might not cover that.

Like a hypothetical school in Chinatown back in the day, where teachers might have tried to counteract the effect of all-white casts of people in textbooks by showing Asian families in handouts.

What do you think?

[Warren Dew]

Warren-- were you saying that handouts and such by the school are where the same-sex couples are being portrayed so frequently? I'm wondering, if that's the case, is it possible, that there's been an initiative to push for parity by playing up same-sex parents because there's still so little depiction of that in textbooks and other older print sources-- especially considering that Massachusetts led the country in promoting same sex marriage, so materials made for schools nationally might not cover that.

Like a hypothetical school in Chinatown back in the day, where teachers might have tried to counteract the effect of all-white casts of people in textbooks by showing Asian families in handouts.

What do you think?

I think that's exactly what is happening - people thinking they can reverse past discrimination by discriminating in the opposite direction. And as you might expect, it's happening in tests and teaching materials as well. Lots of Democrats seem to believe in the "two wrongs make a right" theory of bigotry.

I don't believe in that theory; I think that just perpetuates the prejudice, and pits different groups against each other, making it more difficult for them to get along and for everyone to get past the bigotry. But even if I did believe in that theory, I think it's stupid when applied to school children who were never exposed to the original form of bigotry in the first place: the reverse discrimination is the only discrimination they're exposed to.

[hadespussercats]

Warren-- were you saying that handouts and such by the school are where the same-sex couples are being portrayed so frequently? I'm wondering, if that's the case, is it possible, that there's been an initiative to push for parity by playing up same-sex parents because there's still so little depiction of that in textbooks and other older print sources-- especially considering that Massachusetts led the country in promoting same sex marriage, so materials made for schools nationally might not cover that.

Like a hypothetical school in Chinatown back in the day, where teachers might have tried to counteract the effect of all-white casts of people in textbooks by showing Asian families in handouts.

What do you think?

I think that's exactly what is happening - people thinking they can reverse past discrimination by discriminating in the opposite direction. And as you might expect, it's happening in tests and teaching materials as well. Lots of Democrats seem to believe in the "two wrongs make a right" theory of bigotry.

I don't believe in that theory; I think that just perpetuates the prejudice, and pits different groups against each other, making it more difficult for them to get along and for everyone to get past the bigotry. But even if I did believe in that theory, I think it's stupid when applied to school children who were never exposed to the original form of bigotry in the first place: the reverse discrimination is the only discrimination they're exposed to.

I'm not sure I see the possibility I described as bigotry, though-- because the handouts in that case would just be one element in a ?scape of textbooks, films, manuals, posters, etc., etc., that conform to the heterosexual majority.

Are you thinking that these other images, stories, and examples are getting erased to make way for a world where every family is depicted as queer? Old textbooks are getting burned or expurgated? I don't know if I buy that.

[JimC]

Warren-- were you saying that handouts and such by the school are where the same-sex couples are being portrayed so frequently? I'm wondering, if that's the case, is it possible, that there's been an initiative to push for parity by playing up same-sex parents because there's still so little depiction of that in textbooks and other older print sources-- especially considering that Massachusetts led the country in promoting same sex marriage, so materials made for schools nationally might not cover that.

Like a hypothetical school in Chinatown back in the day, where teachers might have tried to counteract the effect of all-white casts of people in textbooks by showing Asian families in handouts.

What do you think?

I think that's exactly what is happening - people thinking they can reverse past discrimination by discriminating in the opposite direction. And as you might expect, it's happening in tests and teaching materials as well. Lots of Democrats seem to believe in the "two wrongs make a right" theory of bigotry.

I don't believe in that theory; I think that just perpetuates the prejudice, and pits different groups against each other, making it more difficult for them to get along and for everyone to get past the bigotry. But even if I did believe in that theory, I think it's stupid when applied to school children who were never exposed to the original form of bigotry in the first place: the reverse discrimination is the only discrimination they're exposed to.

It's not "discriminating in the opposite direction" if all that happens is that material is chosen to reflect the actual, present-day diversity of a given school or community. In the past, certain ethnic groups or sexual minorities may have been completely ignored, for reasons of prejudice. It would be a little over the top if they became the only groups visible in promotional material, but if they simply make a long-overdue appearance, what's wrong with that?

I am, however, opposed to "tidying up" documents or literature from the past...

[Warren Dew]

I'm not sure I see the possibility I described as bigotry, though-- because the handouts in that case would just be one element in a ?scape of textbooks, films, manuals, posters, etc., etc., that conform to the heterosexual majority.

Sorry - on rereading your earlier post, I think I misunderstood it. I don't think what I'm seeing is compensation for current emphasis on traditional families in other materials; compensation for past emphasis on traditional families perhaps, but the current emphasis is in the opposite direction. Tests and homework tend to emphasize the same politically correct alternative lifestyles. I haven't seen the textbooks, but I don't remember grade school text books as having much social content; among children's books, which have more social content, it's easy to find depictions of whatever form of family one wants, at least in Massachusetts.

Are you thinking that these other images, stories, and examples are getting erased to make way for a world where every family is depicted as queer?

Every family? No. But once you depict the family with two moms, and the family with just a single mother, and the family with two dads, the family with one mom and one dad tends to get crowded out.

It's not "discriminating in the opposite direction" if all that happens is that material is chosen to reflect the actual, present-day diversity of a given school or community.

I would have no problem if that were what were happening here. Unfortunately, it's not.

[Pappa]

Warren, I think the people creating the literature, ads, posters, etc. will always be in a lose-lose situation. If they show homosexual couples at their current social ratio, at most they'll represent maybe 10% of the material produced. That's so low, nobody would notice and they'd likely be chastised for the overwhelming portrayal of white, heterosexual nuclear families. If they portray enough homosexual couples/families to be noticeable, they'll be accused of over-representation.

The same applies to racial portrayals. In order to represent racial diversity, particularly with regards to racial minorities, over-representation is basically a requirement. Otherwise, it's not possible to represent minorities well enough to be visible at all. Throw in "fair" portrayal of gender, sexuality, disability and religion... it becomes very difficult to represent all these elements in a way that appears fair without resorting to over-representation.

[Tyrannical]

Warren-- were you saying that handouts and such by the school are where the same-sex couples are being portrayed so frequently? I'm wondering, if that's the case, is it possible, that there's been an initiative to push for parity by playing up same-sex parents because there's still so little depiction of that in textbooks and other older print sources-- especially considering that Massachusetts led the country in promoting same sex marriage, so materials made for schools nationally might not cover that.

Like a hypothetical school in Chinatown back in the day, where teachers might have tried to counteract the effect of all-white casts of people in textbooks by showing Asian families in handouts.

What do you think?

They could also do it by moving back to some Asian country where they are the majority and all the text book examples feature nice Asian families if that is soooo important to them. Non-slave descended Blacks and all other non-Whites voluntarily came to what they knew very well was a White majority nation.

[Pappa]

[JimC]

Stop it, you're making me sleepy!

[maiforpeace]

I'm not sure I see the possibility I described as bigotry, though-- because the handouts in that case would just be one element in a ?scape of textbooks, films, manuals, posters, etc., etc., that conform to the heterosexual majority.

Sorry - on rereading your earlier post, I think I misunderstood it. I don't think what I'm seeing is compensation for current emphasis on traditional families in other materials; compensation for past emphasis on traditional families perhaps, but the current emphasis is in the opposite direction. Tests and homework tend to emphasize the same politically correct alternative lifestyles. I haven't seen the textbooks, but I don't remember grade school text books as having much social content; among children's books, which have more social content, it's easy to find depictions of whatever form of family one wants, at least in Massachusetts.

Are you thinking that these other images, stories, and examples are getting erased to make way for a world where every family is depicted as queer?

Every family? No. But once you depict the family with two moms, and the family with just a single mother, and the family with two dads, the family with one mom and one dad tends to get crowded out.

It's not "discriminating in the opposite direction" if all that happens is that material is chosen to reflect the actual, present-day diversity of a given school or community.

I would have no problem if that were what were happening here. Unfortunately, it's not.

If this is what you honestly believe, then maybe you need to trust your children to learn. You don't think they are the least bit aware of what's going on around them? Who their friends are, and who their friends parents are? If you don't think they are getting accurate information, you give it to them. You watch the news with them. You learn with them.

I'm not denying that in some cases political indoctrination has occurred (for example, the case where a teacher had her students do projects that were pro-Obama), but I don't consider including LGBT families in the larger narrative as being political indoctrination.

[Tyrannical]

I'm not denying that in some cases political indoctrination has occurred (for example, the case where a teacher had her students do projects that were pro-Obama), but I don't consider including LGBT families in the larger narrative as being political indoctrination.

Teaching, or should I say insisting on tolerance IS indoctrination. We should be free to tolerate or abhor what we choose, especially when the new requirement of acceptance goes against established societal norms.

[hadespussercats]

I'm not denying that in some cases political indoctrination has occurred (for example, the case where a teacher had her students do projects that were pro-Obama), but I don't consider including LGBT families in the larger narrative as being political indoctrination.

Teaching, or should I say insisting on tolerance IS indoctrination. We should be free to tolerate or abhor what we choose, especially when the new requirement of acceptance goes against established societal norms.

Wow, talk about politically correct! Now we have to tolerate the intolerant.