If we want to step outside the joke and fact check the title, it is not accurate to say the image is illegal in Florida but it is also not accurate to say the image is not illegal in Florida.
We need to address two main points:
1. A thing being legal or not is often contextual. It is not illegal in most states to be nude in the shower, but being nude at the post office is generally illegal.
2. The term illegal defines that specifically forbidden by law. The term unlawful defines that which is not specifically allowed by law.
So at the least the image could be referred to as unlawful in Florida in schools. In context to a school setting or arguably where children are in public care, display of this image could be unlawful- but under Florida law, display of this image under various contexts could leave a person or institution open to legal action.
I suppose this is rather dry- so we could find another joke in the topic. There is certainly humor in a Republican bill that in essence legalized suing people because you feel offended. The so called “don’t say gay” bill doesn’t outlaw the term- it makes it not legal to discuss the context of an image like this or answer questions pertaining to the context under certain conditions in schools, and makes it legally perilous to display the image as its context under Florida law can invite a lawsuit simply by causing offense.
I think he just means he's not gonna read all that. To the rest of us with an attention span longer than that of a goldfish, you explained it well. I had no idea the "don't say gay" bill existed.
It’s a big controversy at the moment- it actually isn’t the first bill of this type even. The term “don’t say gay bill” was applied by opponents. It is a bit misleading- the bill primarily says you can’t teach or discuss gender identity or sexuality with K-3 graders in school. It becomes more problematic as it stipulates that in general any such discussions have to be “appropriate” and so forth. Very vague wording that essentially allows any parent to sue a school or teacher if they discuss anything relating to sexual or gender identity that offends a parent.
Then there is the clause about schools needing to “out” students to parents if the school finds out they are LGBTQ+… there is a clause added at the 11th hour allowing them not to if they have reason to suspect abuse at home may occur etc- but it’s all very haphazard and there are lots of misunderstandings.
Yeah, the fallout from the "Parental Rights in Education" will be horrible to watch for those of us who grew up queer.
2
deleted
· 2 years ago
"There is certainly humor in a Republican bill that in essence legalized suing people because you feel offended." - I don't see the humor here as that is GOP and AltRight trademark. "I've insulted you? TRIGGERED! Suck it, snowflake! You criticize me? Boohoo, that's cancel culture and hate speech." they've been doing that for years now.
Aaaaand here we are again with the framing of anything than heterosexuality as "whim" or "perversion" - yeah, absolutely, let's protect the children or else those perverted "educators" will force them to watch "Lemon Party" every morning while saluting to the rainbow flag.
No, kids can bring their religion from home. Their patriotism, their ethnic pride, they can even share and explore their crushes or friendships.
What cannot happen is for teachers or the state to be allowed to indoctrinate them.
Let Omar pray, let Jacob say the pledge for his father who was sent to Poland, and let Tim hold Rob's hand, or Lisa Maria's.
Just do not ever try to sell the idea that a public educator has any right or mandate to have any say over any of this, beyond maintaining order and discipline in the classroom.
@general_failire- lol. That is the humor- for me anyway. A small dark humor in a matter that itself is rather serious and important. The contradiction- the alignment known to be against regulation wanting more regulation- because everything is “cancel culture” and “sjw” “snowflake” etc… until they see something even a child is fine with like two men holding hands and then feel offended. Everyone is playing “victim” say those who love to play the victim even when still firmly in the majority in a matter. The bizarre dissociation is tragically terrifying but also humorous if we step away and pretend we are watching a parody film.
The car rights likes to say things like forcing a person to follow anti discrimination laws invades their freedom, banning “hate speech” is tyranny against freedom… but then support laws that take the freedom from educators to determine curriculum and so forth. Sad. Tragic. Funny. Like a Greek play written by an illiterate.
You think you're joking, failure. But teachers across the nation have been indoctrinating children, telling them to go to riots, teaching racism against whites and those who "act white", insulting the veterans in kid's families, and teaching sex or ideology, not on an objective basis at an age appropriate level, but under the guise of "Your parents are thieves, inherently racist, and bad people".
I would know, I was in school when the bullshit was really starting to catch on.
Guest, educators have no liberty with the children of others.
▼
deleted
· 2 years ago
Aaaaand here we are again with the "they caught me on my specific bullshit so lemme start a random, verbose rant about anything and nothing so maybe people stop answering" routine.
1
·
Edited 2 years ago
deleted
· 2 years ago
@karboll: " the right doesn't seem to have a sense of introspection" - they do, they clearly see the contradiction, they just don't give a shit. It's just what they do. Decency and integrity is for suckers and losers.
In theory what @famousone says is something I COULD support in theory- but in reality it doesn’t work as far as I can tell- someone more clever might be able to explain it to me- but if we can’t teach children our ideology in school- how do we teach basic things like manners and social conduct which different houses have different ideas on?
If one parent is a CEO, they don’t believe in “sharing” or “letting others have a turn,” and don’t want their child learning such things because they see the world as one where the able take what they want and the weak “wait their turn?” Etc. What about the house hold that doesn’t want their child learning that women have an equal voice to men or can work outside the home? What of the house that thinks teaching children that all humans have equal rights is wrong and believes some races are inferior to others? In 2022 there are still homes that don’t want children learning science like evolution or would be offended their child learned the earth…
Then the children will go out into the world with the values instilled by their families and learned from their peers, to succeed or fail on those merits alone.
.. isn’t flat. So as far as I can tell- we simply can’t avoid schools teaching things some parents won’t like or agree with. We can’t avoid ideology in schools if school is to prepare children for the real world. There is no perversion or ideology inherent to same sex couples or trans people etc- they exist. They are as real as the moon or as any government or country or as real as economics. When we take away the ability of teachers to discuss a topic at all- we take away the ability of curious children to question the world and discover reality. Schools certainly IMHO shouldn’t indoctrinate children- but schools are an environment for learning about the world. As for parents right to teach their children- there is total control over a home schooled child. Near total control over a tutor.
You people, you keep assuming that the state will always be righteous, that it ever has been righteous.
What if Trump were the raging racist ya'll thought and might still insist he is? Would you want him to be able to decide how your children are raised? The AG's son is already teaching children racism, discrimination, and outright lies. You would empower Trump, Bush, Clinton, Kamela, Hitler, Castro, or anybody else who can force their way into power that kind of authority over your children? What if the state decides that men shouldn't leave the kitchen? Or that Asians are meant to be enslaved?
But no, you'll just keep assuming that the "good" guys are always in charge.
Most parents in the modern world can’t have a huge involvement in their child’s life. They may work 8-12+ hours a day while their child is at school 6-8+ hours a day. On a weeknight many parents may not spend more than a couple hours with a child and so much if that is spent on chores and such. The impact of a parent on a child is profound, usually more so the younger the child is- but children tend to learn most of their social skills and knowledge in school. From a young age increasing as they get older children tend to be more influenced by their friends, peers, and media than by parents. School is a child’s primary portal for development and exploration and it is the foundation by which we ensure that most all children have an opportunity to learn at least a basic level of functioning and life skills/knowledge in society. If parents don’t want their children learning about the real world I argue it isn’t right to deny all kids exposure to reality for those few delusional parents.
Third graders and younger do not need to know about trans, homosexuality, or anything about sex beyond "Tell a cop if anybody touches your __".
They're learning geography, shapes, penmanship, recess, times tables. Not sex, drugs, and fascism.
@famousone- sorry. Was typing. Just saw your replies. I agree 100%- the state is not always righteous. To your example though- “what if the state decides all Asians should be enslaved?” So my counter question is- does that mean we should pass a law that makes it illegal to discuss or teach about Asians to K-3 or any other grade unless it is “appropriate?” And that word is important- because the state decides what “appropriate” in this bill means. So if the state thinks all Asians should be enslaved or gays are a plague etc- then by default they’d decide teaching that is “appropriate” wouldn’t they? So if we don’t teach or mention about Asians at all because the state may decide to teach they should be slaves… that doesn’t really stop anything does it? It does prevent exposing children to that group and teaching them history and normalizing their presence to kids who don’t have any Asian people they are close to though.
Really? That's the best you could come up with?
The law is for teachers dealing with young children to say "Ask your parents", when a subject comes up. It isn't state control, it is the state ceding control to those who actually should be the ones to have it.
If the schools had to do the same thing regarding race, "ask your parents", or guns, "ask your parents", or anything that isn't numbers, maps, labs, or settled history "ask your parents", it would be a major victory for individuals and families everywhere. Certainly better than what we've had in my lifetime.
@famousone- I’m going to agree that having discussions on sexuality with K-3 seems odd- but if “it’s the law…” “..ask your parents…” then why do we need another law specific to this matter? A law that essentially forbids even a simple answer like: “just like you have a mommy and a daddy, Jeff has 2 daddies”? Why does that law require a school report on a child’s sexuality or gender identity to their parents- it’s odd to discuss sexuality or gender identity with kids, or isn’t the schools place to be involved… except spy and report on it? And again- if schools can’t teach things other than wrote fact- how do they teach things like “taking turns” etc, or your belief is kids should be left to sort that all out amongst themselves without educators being involved? What about the context required to understand facts like history? When a child asks in history class why women couldn’t vote- a teacher has to say: “ask your parents” because that’s a gender identity question?
@famousone- response to “educators have no liberty with the children of others..”
Actually no. They do. By law. They literally have to. It’s not only required given that the reason you left your child with this stranger is to educate them- but by Virtue of needing to endure their well being, other students well being, and a learning environment, teachers have discretionary rights and liberties pertaining to their job. They can use non corporal punishment like “time outs” or revoke privileges to discipline a child. They are literally a care giver.
No. You're reaching, now.
Jeff can talk about his daddies or mommies all he wants, just like Niel can talk about his cousin's bar mitzvah, or Lu about her head scarf. But a teacher cannot advocate or condemn the mommies, daddies, Jews, or Muslims.
Being compelled to "share" private property is wrong, but speaking in turns falls under "good order and discipline". There is nothing ideological about not speaking over a teacher while your classmates are trying to learn how to add two-digit numbers. God knows most of us would've been happier if the trouble-makers would pipe-down for just a few minutes at a time.
It is established history that people thought women, blacks, jews, whatever, were inferior. Bring up the quotes and actions of the men and women who thought one way, the other, and in-between. I would personally love for teachers to teach the context, but I can't hold what I like to different standards when it comes to legislation effecting everyone.
And no, woman's suffrage is objective history, not "gender identity".
Care-giving is not a liberty, it is a practical reality. What teachers have no liberty over is a child's identity, ideology, or thoughts.
1. You didn’t address the question. The question wasn’t about Jeff talking about his family, it was about Jeff asking a teacher about families.
2. You are factually incorrect in several places. We can debate viewpoints but facts are facts. “Good order and discipline” are ideological constructs as is their expression. Talking over people is a tactic employed by many successful people. Wether we let others speak or not is ideological. Just as women or other groups are not allowed to speak in certain circumstances etc. teaching a child such things is a form of cultural and ideological expression. Communication isn’t universal. One of the things myself and others have pointed out here, and this isn’t an attack but an opportunity for self realization- is you have frequently spoken as though what is normal or “common sense” to you is universal. If one travels the world or meets many types of people and pays attention, one will notice that these concepts change with culture or history.
@famousone- in response to: “did you forget we are talking about…”
1. My school taught about suffrage around age 9 to all children, and our gifted education classes taught more complex topics, simplified a bit for age, around that age as well. They built on the basic knowledge as we got older and could understand more and ask more questions.
2. We aren’t just talking about up to 9 year olds. As written the bill places a blanket over all grades of public school on discussing such matters regardless of age under a vague and not defined concept of “appropriateness.” Meaning that any teacher or school can be sued if a 17 year olds parents say that talking about trans people offended them for example.
3. Serious question- how would you feel about a law that said anyone could sue a school or teacher if anything they discussed relating to race was deemed to be offensive to any parent?
We need to address two main points:
1. A thing being legal or not is often contextual. It is not illegal in most states to be nude in the shower, but being nude at the post office is generally illegal.
2. The term illegal defines that specifically forbidden by law. The term unlawful defines that which is not specifically allowed by law.
I suppose this is rather dry- so we could find another joke in the topic. There is certainly humor in a Republican bill that in essence legalized suing people because you feel offended. The so called “don’t say gay” bill doesn’t outlaw the term- it makes it not legal to discuss the context of an image like this or answer questions pertaining to the context under certain conditions in schools, and makes it legally perilous to display the image as its context under Florida law can invite a lawsuit simply by causing offense.
Then there is the clause about schools needing to “out” students to parents if the school finds out they are LGBTQ+… there is a clause added at the 11th hour allowing them not to if they have reason to suspect abuse at home may occur etc- but it’s all very haphazard and there are lots of misunderstandings.
What cannot happen is for teachers or the state to be allowed to indoctrinate them.
Let Omar pray, let Jacob say the pledge for his father who was sent to Poland, and let Tim hold Rob's hand, or Lisa Maria's.
Just do not ever try to sell the idea that a public educator has any right or mandate to have any say over any of this, beyond maintaining order and discipline in the classroom.
The car rights likes to say things like forcing a person to follow anti discrimination laws invades their freedom, banning “hate speech” is tyranny against freedom… but then support laws that take the freedom from educators to determine curriculum and so forth. Sad. Tragic. Funny. Like a Greek play written by an illiterate.
I would know, I was in school when the bullshit was really starting to catch on.
If one parent is a CEO, they don’t believe in “sharing” or “letting others have a turn,” and don’t want their child learning such things because they see the world as one where the able take what they want and the weak “wait their turn?” Etc. What about the house hold that doesn’t want their child learning that women have an equal voice to men or can work outside the home? What of the house that thinks teaching children that all humans have equal rights is wrong and believes some races are inferior to others? In 2022 there are still homes that don’t want children learning science like evolution or would be offended their child learned the earth…
What if Trump were the raging racist ya'll thought and might still insist he is? Would you want him to be able to decide how your children are raised? The AG's son is already teaching children racism, discrimination, and outright lies. You would empower Trump, Bush, Clinton, Kamela, Hitler, Castro, or anybody else who can force their way into power that kind of authority over your children? What if the state decides that men shouldn't leave the kitchen? Or that Asians are meant to be enslaved?
But no, you'll just keep assuming that the "good" guys are always in charge.
They're learning geography, shapes, penmanship, recess, times tables. Not sex, drugs, and fascism.
The law is for teachers dealing with young children to say "Ask your parents", when a subject comes up. It isn't state control, it is the state ceding control to those who actually should be the ones to have it.
If the schools had to do the same thing regarding race, "ask your parents", or guns, "ask your parents", or anything that isn't numbers, maps, labs, or settled history "ask your parents", it would be a major victory for individuals and families everywhere. Certainly better than what we've had in my lifetime.
Actually no. They do. By law. They literally have to. It’s not only required given that the reason you left your child with this stranger is to educate them- but by Virtue of needing to endure their well being, other students well being, and a learning environment, teachers have discretionary rights and liberties pertaining to their job. They can use non corporal punishment like “time outs” or revoke privileges to discipline a child. They are literally a care giver.
Jeff can talk about his daddies or mommies all he wants, just like Niel can talk about his cousin's bar mitzvah, or Lu about her head scarf. But a teacher cannot advocate or condemn the mommies, daddies, Jews, or Muslims.
Being compelled to "share" private property is wrong, but speaking in turns falls under "good order and discipline". There is nothing ideological about not speaking over a teacher while your classmates are trying to learn how to add two-digit numbers. God knows most of us would've been happier if the trouble-makers would pipe-down for just a few minutes at a time.
It is established history that people thought women, blacks, jews, whatever, were inferior. Bring up the quotes and actions of the men and women who thought one way, the other, and in-between. I would personally love for teachers to teach the context, but I can't hold what I like to different standards when it comes to legislation effecting everyone.
Care-giving is not a liberty, it is a practical reality. What teachers have no liberty over is a child's identity, ideology, or thoughts.
2. You are factually incorrect in several places. We can debate viewpoints but facts are facts. “Good order and discipline” are ideological constructs as is their expression. Talking over people is a tactic employed by many successful people. Wether we let others speak or not is ideological. Just as women or other groups are not allowed to speak in certain circumstances etc. teaching a child such things is a form of cultural and ideological expression. Communication isn’t universal. One of the things myself and others have pointed out here, and this isn’t an attack but an opportunity for self realization- is you have frequently spoken as though what is normal or “common sense” to you is universal. If one travels the world or meets many types of people and pays attention, one will notice that these concepts change with culture or history.
1. My school taught about suffrage around age 9 to all children, and our gifted education classes taught more complex topics, simplified a bit for age, around that age as well. They built on the basic knowledge as we got older and could understand more and ask more questions.
2. We aren’t just talking about up to 9 year olds. As written the bill places a blanket over all grades of public school on discussing such matters regardless of age under a vague and not defined concept of “appropriateness.” Meaning that any teacher or school can be sued if a 17 year olds parents say that talking about trans people offended them for example.
3. Serious question- how would you feel about a law that said anyone could sue a school or teacher if anything they discussed relating to race was deemed to be offensive to any parent?