Bungee Jumper Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (please leave out the indocterination replies). Why? Lost in all this is that, while the school was intolerant of an anti-gay message, they were openly advocating a gay tolerance message. Does anyone care to comment on the school's explicit double-standard of tolerance being highly selective? How is that not indoctrination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 agreed on principle but where do you draw the line? at the promotion or moment of violence? people who might fervently disagree with you would suggest that public expression of intolerence (lack of a better word) creates a hostile environment unlike your free thinking one...your response? I think in the long run more hostile environments in society are created by repression of expression of ideas. In other words: banning expression of racism does not eradicate racism. It just represses it underground, where it boils and ferments and later explodes in a more cataclysmic and violent manner, the cycle starting all over again. When you ban something or tell someone that an idea can not be expressed, you are essentially justifying whatever myopic viewpoint they are expressing and giving it a certain legitimacy, which further emboldens them to express and fight for whatever viewpoint they are espousing because they believe opposition proves they are in the "right". This is essential to their blind zealotry; they always must believe that are in the right, otherwise there is no ground for them to stand on. So, in their mind, because they are further "repressed" by the powers-that-be, the powers-that-be must be afraid of and scared of the viewpoint, which to, a KKK member, for example, means that their very way of life is being threatened. They believe there very bloodline is being threatened! It is almost fundamentally impossible to convince someone who feels that there very way of life is being threatened that they should not fight for their life. People, especially myopic, brainwashed people, completely shut off whatever small part of their brain has a capability for rationality when they are fighting for what they feel is their "very existence". I understand the short-term consequences of a more radical interpretation of "freedom of expression". Allowing a neo-nazi kid to where a pro-holocaust shirt, for example, and causing violence to break out in the school because of it, is not something I would ever stand for or allow to happen. It certainly does not promote a safe and nurturing educational environment. A more far reaching and thinking ideal such as the one I am advocating must always be balanced against the more immediate practical concerns of the moment for it to be properly implemented over time. I certainly also am not advocating "accepting" racial, homophobic, or other violence in schools in the short term for the benefit of the long term. But we can't forego pursuing the ideal because we live in a pragmatic world; we can't not address the roots of intolerance even though no one can go back and rewrite past events to create an ideal tabula rasa to implement a completely idealistic philosophy. What I'm saying is that, in the long term, the way to address intolerance in any form is to make it as radically exterior as possible, to show its ugliness and hatefulness in the light of day for everyone to see so that it is not allowed to go back underground, ferment, grow stronger, and reappear in the public arena at a later date where it will inevitably cause more harm and damage than it would have if it had been exposed to the microscope of open-mindedness since day one. There must be a balance somewhere between maintenance of order and exteriority of expression that allows civility in the short term to be maintained while in the long term allowing all expression to be made public so that it can be transformed by all of us into something more pure and thoughtful. How exactly this is to be accomplished is the burning question of the day, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I think in the long run more hostile environments in society are created by repression of expression of ideas. In other words: banning expression of racism does not eradicate racism. It just represses it underground, where it boils and ferments and later explodes in a more cataclysmic and violent manner, the cycle starting all over again. When you ban something or tell someone that an idea can not be expressed, you are essentially justifying whatever myopic viewpoint they are expressing and giving it a certain legitimacy, which further emboldens them to express and fight for whatever viewpoint they are espousing because they believe opposition proves they are in the "right". This is essential to their blind zealotry; they always must believe that are in the right, otherwise there is no ground for them to stand on. So, in their mind, because they are further "repressed" by the powers-that-be, the powers-that-be must be afraid of and scared of the viewpoint, which to, a KKK member, for example, means that their very way of life is being threatened. They believe there very bloodline is being threatened! It is almost fundamentally impossible to convince someone who feels that there very way of life is being threatened that they should not fight for their life. People, especially myopic, brainwashed people, completely shut off whatever small part of their brain has a capability for rationality when they are fighting for what they feel is their "very existence". I understand the short-term consequences of a more radical interpretation of "freedom of expression". Allowing a neo-nazi kid to where a pro-holocaust shirt, for example, and causing violence to break out in the school because of it, is not something I would ever stand for or allow to happen. It certainly does not promote a safe and nurturing educational environment. A more far reaching and thinking ideal such as the one I am advocating must always be balanced against the more immediate practical concerns of the moment for it to be properly implemented over time. I certainly also am not advocating "accepting" racial, homophobic, or other violence in schools in the short term for the benefit of the long term. But we can't forego pursuing the ideal because we live in a pragmatic world; we can't not address the roots of intolerance even though no one can go back and rewrite past events to create an ideal tabula rasa to implement a completely idealistic philosophy. What I'm saying is that, in the long term, the way to address intolerance in any form is to make it as radically exterior as possible, to show its ugliness and hatefulness in the light of day for everyone to see so that it is not allowed to go back underground, ferment, grow stronger, and reappear in the public arena at a later date where it will inevitably cause more harm and damage than it would have if it had been exposed to the microscope of open-mindedness since day one. There must be a balance somewhere between maintenance of order and exteriority of expression that allows civility in the short term to be maintained while in the long term allowing all expression to be made public so that it can be transformed by all of us into something more pure and thoughtful. How exactly this is to be accomplished is the burning question of the day, imo. Always a pleasure. But.. By your thinking, is it impossible to justify harsher penalties for non-peaceful acts of intolerence- for example, (and in taking in your ideas of exteriority) There's a Spaniard who hates Peruvians, belongs to an orgainzation that sponsors a public campaign against Peruvians, and lives in a community notorios for being inhospitable towards Peruvians to the extent that no Peruvians dare reside there. One day he steps outside, bumps into a Peruvian outside his frontdoor and proceeds to beat him to a bloody pulp. His act was compelled by the philosophy that his own community supported and his own government tolerated. By judging the assault against the Peruvian as just another assault between humans, then the government is turning it's back on a situation which limits the personal freedoms of the individuals (in this case Peruvians) by allowing intolerence to dictate things he can or cannot do (in this case traverse through a heavily Spanish area). Similarily, but to a far lesser degree, a gay kid in one school has 200 classmates that tolerate his sexuality and 50 who don't. Life for him isn't perfect, but it's not bad. On the other hand, a gay kid in another school has only 10 classmates who tolerate his sexuality and 240 who don't. Oh yeah, his princial, superintendant, and most of his teachers can't stand queers either. Now this individual is no longer compelled to attend school and since it's okay to disrupt the poor guy's daily life by the bigotry entitled to his classmates and administrators by the government, he'll probably drop out all together. does this make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I think in the long run more hostile environments in society are created by repression of expression of ideas. I'm all for the State not demanding compulsory education of children, under their auspices, under pain of fine and incarceration for non-compliance. Free expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 does this make sense? I'm not sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Always a pleasure. But.. By your thinking, is it impossible to justify harsher penalties for non-peaceful acts of intolerence- for example, (and in taking in your ideas of exteriority) There's a Spaniard who hates Peruvians, belongs to an orgainzation that sponsors a public campaign against Peruvians, and lives in a community notorios for being inhospitable towards Peruvians to the extent that no Peruvians dare reside there. One day he steps outside, bumps into a Peruvian outside his frontdoor and proceeds to beat him to a bloody pulp. His act was compelled by the philosophy that his own community supported and his own government tolerated. By judging the assault against the Peruvian as just another assault between humans, then the government is turning it's back on a situation which limits the personal freedoms of the individuals (in this case Peruvians) by allowing intolerence to dictate things he can or cannot do (in this case traverse through a heavily Spanish area). Similarily, but to a far lesser degree, a gay kid in one school has 200 classmates that tolerate his sexuality and 50 who don't. Life for him isn't perfect, but it's not bad. On the other hand, a gay kid in another school has only 10 classmates who tolerate his sexuality and 240 who don't. Oh yeah, his princial, superintendant, and most of his teachers can't stand queers either. Now this individual is no longer compelled to attend school and since it's okay to disrupt the poor guy's daily life by the bigotry entitled to his classmates and administrators by the government, he'll probably drop out all together. does this make sense? It makes perfect sense. Any ideal, in order to be implemented and blossom within society, must have firm roots in the here and now and must be able to marry itself to a solid, pragmatic core that can be enforced on a daily basis in our societal institutions. I don't mean to suggest that there shouldn't be harsh penalties for violent acts of intolerance. I just think we should view (necessary) punishment as the starting point for a greater approach that is actively moving through our society through time as our children and ourselves grow older. It is not just a matter of laws; it's a matter of philosophy, active participation, and wielding the all important tool of rational discourse. Rigid laws that just enforce a punishment do not have the necessary capacity to address the root reasons that intolerance flourishes and is taught, especially to children. It is not just a matter of punishing someone and they magically become tolerant and therefore do not indoctrinate their intolerance into their children. Implementing a penalty is merely the most immediate (and pragmatically necessary) facet of actively promoting the overall goal of excavating the roots of intolerance and keeping them in the limelight of the day so that they wither in the sunlight as opposed to fester and grow in the darkness, so to speak. Vigilance is not just implementing a penalty; it can be a lifestyle lived daily and constantly by society and the individuals that are its lifeblood. A lot of people might say that is exactly what we do right now, and we do, to a degree, but we are short shrifting our own efforts by often being afraid to bring intolerance into the spotlight and thereby steal the thunder and fuel of the intolerant. We are afraid to really talk about it, show it openly, and thus allow the seeds of greater understanding to take root so that they may more blossom fully in the future. People today would much rather sweep bigotry under the rug by locking someone away and hoping they don't commit a violent act again than constructively examine the reasons why generation after generation are indoctrinated into a narrow-minded intolerant worldview. We need to find a way to break this cycle of intolerance that is (inadvertently or not, depending on your specific bent) reinforced by the implementation of justice in the short term. A specific punishment may justly fit the crime, but does it help prevent violent acts of intolerance in the future? Does it make those who are punished even more bitter and intolerant at the system and thus more willing to commit another act and/or indoctrinate their children into their myopia? Does the penalty, after the punishment has been rendered, actively continue to extend its feelers into the future so as to bring other facets of intolerance to light to benefit us all as a whole? One only has to look at the widespread existence of intolerance in the world today to see that punishment, penalties, and repression of intolerance are not enough by themselves to transform this cycle that is perpetuated through the generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 As much as I hate to agree with the kids, they do have the right to wear those shirts at school. Since the kids have a right to be there and since they have a right to freedom of speech, they should be able to express their views. I understand that this could be constructed as saying that kids should have the right to wear shirts that say "N*ggers should be back in Africa" , and unfortunately i agree with their right to wear it. I do not agree with the message, but this is the land where we are entitled to free speech (barring death threats or other crimes). In a parallel, I have a tee-shirt that says "Meet the Fvckers" w/ Bush and Cheney waving, I think that students should be able to wear it, but I think that administrators and whoever else should talk with the parents about their child's attire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I believe sexual orientation is a federally protected category. So, no, you can't wear your anti-gay t-shirt to school. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free...ech/tinker.htmlhttp://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...udentspeech.htm I agree 100% with those links. The gov't can't keep you from speaking out against {insert cause}, but your employer sure as hell can. Same situation in my opinion. "But it's a government school' you'll say.... try getting away with an anti-gay t-shirt as public defender, senate staffer, or even a snow-plow-driver-guy. It's not a question of keeping down dissent, it's striking a balance between allowing school children to express themselves and keeping the school itself driving forward with it's core mission of education (please leave out the indocterination replies). You're comparing apples to oranges. The students are not employed by anyone. If the school wants to "drive forward" and have a core mission of education than leave out any 'special' day that could cause uprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffal0 Bill5 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I agree with the message on the shirts and I support the right to wear them. I am already aware that I am a "narrow minded bigot" so save the lecture. Just wanted to voice my opinion, because it still, possibly for a limited time, is my right as an American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I agree with the message on the shirts and I support the right to wear them. I am already aware that I am a "narrow minded bigot" so save the lecture. Just wanted to voice my opinion, because it still, possibly for a limited time, is my right as an American. No kidding. Were turning into a nation that is "free" as long as we agree to accept everything immoral and not to voice our opinion. Disclaimier: I do not encourage the beatings of homosexuals or anything of the sort. Nor do I demoralize them. Sin is sin. You do not hate the sinner. You hate the sin. I would say the same thing if someone was a constant lier or any other sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free...ech/tinker.htmlhttp://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...udentspeech.htm I agree 100% with those links. The gov't can't keep you from speaking out against {insert cause}, but your employer sure as hell can. Same situation in my opinion. "But it's a government school' you'll say.... try getting away with an anti-gay t-shirt as public defender, senate staffer, or even a snow-plow-driver-guy. It's not a question of keeping down dissent, it's striking a balance between allowing school children to express themselves and keeping the school itself driving forward with it's core mission of education (please leave out the indocterination replies). If its not ok to wear an anti-homosexual shirt or to say anti-homosexual things, why is it ok to say or promote pro-homosexual methods? Do those same employers allow their employees to wear pro-homosexual items? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Aside from the question of free expression, one thing is encouraging to me: In general, tolerance of gay people has come a long way. When I was in high school 20 years ago (holy sh--, what have I done with my life?!), no way was any kid gonna be openly gay. And everyone's opinion was pretty much the same on the subject, that homosexuality was to be feared and mocked and that's how we liked it. In this respect, I think young people now are way more enlightened then I was when I was in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Does anybody know who pirated "thong" away from the beach foot ware, for use as a name for female underwear? And relegated the former thong to now be called a "flip-flop"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Does anybody know who pirated "thong" away from the beach foot ware, for use as a name for female underwear? And relegated the former thong to now be called a "flip-flop"? According to this, the buttfloss usage dates to 1990... etymology of "thong" I think we all have fond memories of that magical summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffal0 Bill5 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Aside from the question of free expression, one thing is encouraging to me: In general, tolerance of gay people has come a long way. When I was in high school 20 years ago (holy sh--, what have I done with my life?!), no way was any kid gonna be openly gay. And everyone's opinion was pretty much the same on the subject, that homosexuality was to be feared and mocked and that's how we liked it. In this respect, I think young people now are way more enlightened then I was when I was in school. Wow, overgeneralization and assumption concerning the thoughts of the entire population certainly comprise a lucid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Why? Lost in all this is that, while the school was intolerant of an anti-gay message, they were openly advocating a gay tolerance message. Unreal that the yahoos in this country don't even blink an eye about a pro-homosexuality day in public schools. And people wonder why a) anti gay bias is increasing among people who were previously indifferent and b) people have given up on the public school system. Thank God there's always private school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 If its not ok to wear an anti-homosexual shirt or to say anti-homosexual things, why is it ok to say or promote pro-homosexual methods? Do those same employers allow their employees to wear pro-homosexual items? How does asking them to remove anti-gay clothing make them pro-homosexual? I really fall into the category of indifferent. The whole thing is simply too polarized regardless of position. I think it's 100% acceptable to express any opinion - pro or con - until it becomes a disruption. At that point, whatever the message, it's gone to far. Unreal that the yahoos in this country don't even blink an eye about a pro-homosexuality day in public schools. Ok, I missed that - "pro-homosexuality day?" Where'd that come from? Is that like "sign up for the Army" day? Do you get to pick up a pamphlet and sign-up if it interests you? You know how the Army does that helicopter-on-the-football-field demonstration for Seniors? Haha... I know I'm in the minority, but I honestly believe that 9 times out of 10, the public school's intent is good. Teaching tolerance, respect for differences, and so on... in principal, all are noble causes. All are such hot-button issues that it's nearly impossible to keep the politics out of it. Tolerance? Liberal Scum! Army? Right wing profiteer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 How does asking them to remove anti-gay clothing make them pro-homosexual? I think his point was the school was openly and actively advocating an arguably pro-homosexual activity or set of activities ("In response to a National Day of Silence event in April [...] On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to highlight discrimination against homosexuals.") while silencing any dissenting opinion. I don't give much of a sh-- about the issue either way...but I am concerned that some expression is encouraged in schools while dissenting expression is punished. Really, I think if you're going to give time to an expression of support for homosexuality, you shouldn't be silencing dissent. If you feel you HAVE to silence dissent, don't introduce the issue to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I think his point was the school was openly and actively advocating an arguably pro-homosexual activity or set of activities ("In response to a National Day of Silence event in April [...] On the Day of Silence, students can refrain from speaking as an effort to highlight discrimination against homosexuals.") while silencing any dissenting opinion. I don't give much of a sh-- about the issue either way...but I am concerned that some expression is encouraged in schools while dissenting expression is punished. Really, I think if you're going to give time to an expression of support for homosexuality, you shouldn't be silencing dissent. If you feel you HAVE to silence dissent, don't introduce the issue to begin with. Agreed. That silence thing... I missed that. I didn't realize they had an organized event for the "Gay is Good" group. I thought they took it upon themselves just to start wearing that stuff. That chances a lot. That will teach me to just skim an article. Apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts