8 ms·

The bill in Florida was perfectly reasonable. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occu

The bill in Florida was perfectly reasonable. 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 according to state standards. 3rd grade classrooms are not places of intellectual freedom. They are places of indoctrination. A third grader does not have academic freedom, there is no countervailing point in the classroom. It is completely different than a university setting. According to the t xt of the bill, I can't think of any good reason for a teacher to want to violate the law unless they want to push their own agenda onto the children. And that should not happen in a public school.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Why can't the banning depictions of mohammad also be 'perfectly reasonable' because it university classrooms are not places of intellectual freedom, they are places of indoctrination. I can't think of any good reason for a teacher to want to violate this policy unless they want to push their own agenda onto the students. See how generic your defense is? It can be used for anything you disagree with. 'I need a new butt', was a book on the schools reading list. Was firing that teacher perfectly reasonable also? Was a funny book about butts indoctrination? Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state?
- yucky 4y ago
  > Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state? Critical race theory needs to be treated the same as other pro-discrimination ideologies. Either they're all ok or none are ok. Picking and choosing one type of racial discrimination to support is in fact racist. After all, Ibram X. Kendi who is generally regarded as the foremost proponent of Critical Race Theory argued in his book How to Be an Antiracist that, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” This is a fundamental position of Critical Race teachings. Many would argue it's reasonable for parents to not want this sort of "good racial discrimination" being taught to their kids.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    Well then I don't get it. Putting up depictions of Mohammad can easily be viewed as inflammatory discrimination against Muslims, but that's ok? Again, I don't think this teacher should have been fired. But the arguments against it in these comments seem hypocritical when support is given to other types of censorship only because they happen to disagree with what was being suppressed.
    - yucky 4y ago
      > Well then I don't get it. Putting up depictions of Mohammad can easily be viewed as inflammatory discrimination against Muslims, but that's ok? Although it was unnecessarily inflammatory in my opinion, it isn't a universal belief among Muslims that Mohammad can't be depicted and it certainly isn't a core tenet of Islam. If anything, one would argue that depictions of Mohammad should be treated the same as depictions of Jesus, Moses etc.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
        Ps, side question. How do you make the quoted part of the comment come out in a different font like that?
        ModernMech 4y ago
        Prepend a paragraph with two spaces
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      > Although it was unnecessarily inflammatory in my opinion, it isn't a universal belief among Muslims that Mohammad can't be depicted and it certainly isn't a core tenet of Islam. If anything, one would argue that depictions of Mohammad should be treated the same as depictions of Jesus, Moses etc. Exactly my point. Arguments could be made about the validity of any of these topics. There is no consistent basis, just 'This is censorship because topic is bad in my opinion, but other topic can be censored without issue because I disagree with it'.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

Why can't the banning depictions of mohammad also be 'perfectly reasonable' because it university classrooms are not places of intellectual freedom, they are places of indoctrination. I can't think of any good reason for a teacher to want to violate this policy unless they want to push their own agenda onto the students. See how generic your defense is? It can be used for anything you disagree with. 'I need a new butt', was a book on the schools reading list. Was firing that teacher perfectly reasonable also? Was a funny book about butts indoctrination? Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state?

yucky 4y ago
> Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state? Critical race theory needs to be treated the same as other pro-discrimination ideologies. Either they're all ok or none are ok. Picking and choosing one type of racial discrimination to support is in fact racist. After all, Ibram X. Kendi who is generally regarded as the foremost proponent of Critical Race Theory argued in his book How to Be an Antiracist that, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” This is a fundamental position of Critical Race teachings. Many would argue it's reasonable for parents to not want this sort of "good racial discrimination" being taught to their kids.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  Well then I don't get it. Putting up depictions of Mohammad can easily be viewed as inflammatory discrimination against Muslims, but that's ok? Again, I don't think this teacher should have been fired. But the arguments against it in these comments seem hypocritical when support is given to other types of censorship only because they happen to disagree with what was being suppressed.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > Well then I don't get it. Putting up depictions of Mohammad can easily be viewed as inflammatory discrimination against Muslims, but that's ok? Although it was unnecessarily inflammatory in my opinion, it isn't a universal belief among Muslims that Mohammad can't be depicted and it certainly isn't a core tenet of Islam. If anything, one would argue that depictions of Mohammad should be treated the same as depictions of Jesus, Moses etc.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      Ps, side question. How do you make the quoted part of the comment come out in a different font like that?
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        Prepend a paragraph with two spaces
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    > Although it was unnecessarily inflammatory in my opinion, it isn't a universal belief among Muslims that Mohammad can't be depicted and it certainly isn't a core tenet of Islam. If anything, one would argue that depictions of Mohammad should be treated the same as depictions of Jesus, Moses etc. Exactly my point. Arguments could be made about the validity of any of these topics. There is no consistent basis, just 'This is censorship because topic is bad in my opinion, but other topic can be censored without issue because I disagree with it'.