Jump to content

Yay or Nay? Teaching Sexism, Homophobia, and Racism to young kids


Rozalia
 Share

Yay or Nay? Teaching Sexism, Homophobia, and Racism to young kids  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. Women should be servants to men, Homosexuals should be hanged, Blacks and Jews are subhuman... are these acceptable things to be taught to young kids?

    • Yes, I agree with ComradeMilton and fully support the teaching of young children such things.
    • No, I agree with Rozalia in that such a thing is wrong and insane.


Recommended Posts

With the stiffness of the views put forward to me lately I thought I would check how many disagree with me and support the teaching of sexism, homophobia, and racism in schools to young children. Below is the chain of the convo spawning this poll here which is a small part of that huge mess of a thread. 
 

 

I know what they try to teach and that in order to qualify as a legitimate school also have to handle the normal curriculum any other school does. The rest is objectionable, but protected speech.

 

Forcing them to not segregate and disrespect females, not teach that the Jews are devils, that Apostates should be killed, and so on is "encroachment on their religious freedoms".

 

Yes

 

Anyway... there is a large difference between supporting freedom of speech and THE TEACHING OF SEXISM, RACISM, AND HOMOPHOBIA TO YOUNG CHILDREN.

 

No difference at all.  Did you even take civics or government in school?  You know shockingly little about it. Total List of Things Not Protected by the First Amendment:
 

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4] The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"[5] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. <-- I see absolutely nothing about what you want censored.

 

 

No one has a right to push such hateful and terrible things on children and the large majority of people are against such things. Most would not be as kind as I have in fact as such a view is just well, insane.

 

Schools act as in loco parentis and absent restrictions, as we've just seen, what you described is perfectly legal and, in fact, protected.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of this is do you believe in the First Amendment or not? It's often needed most when unpopular speech is used because why would popular speech have someone try to shut it down? Roz can't seem to understand this, but if you support the religious and speech provisions of the Constitution it basically goes for everyone, no matter how hateful, shitty or objectionable the actual content is.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a freedom of speech issue at all. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to teach violence towards other individuals and never has. Anyone who legit thinks otherwise doesn't understand the first thing about free speech. Uh, it absolutely does. It's not included in any of the exceptions to speech so it stands as it is. You might be thinking of 'fighting words" which aren't allowed, but these aren't those.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of this is do you believe in the First Amendment or not? It's often needed most when unpopular speech is used because why would popular speech have someone try to shut it down? Roz can't seem to understand this, but if you support the religious and speech provisions of the Constitution it basically goes for everyone, no matter how hateful, shitty or objectionable the actual content is.

 

For those who think I may well be making it up due to just how crazy it all is, here is Milton himself confirming it.

 

I think it's a well known fact that Roz is an idiot

 

That's cool whoever you are. If hating me is enough to make you admit to supporting this viewpoint of Milton here then I'm happy to be such an important part of your decision making capacity. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support rozalia, the first amendment should be repealed. Freedom of Speech is inherently flawed. We should instead let the government decide what we can and cannot say instead, that's definitely the best option and has never gone wrong in the history of mankind.

  • Upvote 3

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pandering that the left does to the religion of Islam is incredibly contradictory to any views that they might be pushing around ethno and gender rights. Frankly Islam is incompatible to the west on a fundamental level, and since we're here first we have the right to say they cannot teach their beliefs here if it conflicts with us on a fundamental level. If it doesn't, then the west can go to the middle east and push for them to our beliefs and philosophy system?

 

 

I support rozalia, the first amendment should be repealed. Freedom of Speech is inherently flawed. We should instead let the government decide what we can and cannot say instead, that's definitely the best option and has never gone wrong in the history of mankind.

 

I'd say suppress or outlaw anything like this on an INSTITUTIONAL level. On the level of personal action and speech of course we should allow it, but not in schools. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean you can support free speach and still oppose this. In Europe or Canada people teaching such messages would not only be forbidden but probably arrested, as people tend to be for hate speach. Most of those countries would still consider themselves to have free speach. Granted I fall on the "absolute" spectrum and free speach and strongly oppose hate speach laws, but you can have a principled belief in freedom of speech and oppose these kinds of speach (though I disagree with it).

 

Personally I am disgusted by the hate that you are saying these schools preach, as I am sure are most people here. And I certainly wouldn't condone any state funding for support for schools that do (and I doubt they get any). But if the actual academics are up to standards legally it's fine. Everyone is required to receive an education and schools are mandated to properly provide one to be recognized. Things taught or encouraged outside those subjects (and not against the law) are imo outside the purview of the state. 

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 3

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

British interruption here since the sources were about the UK, US law does not apply etc etc.

 

Teaching that sexism, homophobia and racism are acceptable is not just wrong, in some cases it is illegal.

 

"Protected speech" comes with attached exceptions, for example in England and Wales there are active laws against hate speech (defined as speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnicity, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation). This does not just include specific words, but is context bound.

 

The simple fact is, some of the content is in violation of equality and anti-discrimination laws. In addition to this, actively promoting sexism, racism and homophobia can cause violent acts to happen. Words can have real consequences from all sides.

 

I'm extremely fortunate to live in the UK, in one of the top 50 state run schools and under the protection provided by UK law which the LGBT community has had to fight consistently for. The legal protection given to us is extremely important. Only just recently, after many attempts the Greens proposed  compulsory education on relationships which also include ending violence towards women (which also has further implications to said teaching) which has now been passed, which will now force all institutions to follow the curriculum set by the DoE and other bodies. Laws dictate the right to free speech (sadly Katie Hopkins seems to be exempt from this) - the concern here is not if it is acceptable, but why Ofsted, the DoE and Ofqual (the relevant UK bodies) are not doing enough about this in other areas of the UK.

  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png.a5280e76db3e7bedecea0a5e4d7b7daf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean you can support free speach and still oppose this. In Europe or Canada people teaching such messages would not only be forbidden but probably arrested, as people tend to be for hate speach. Most of those countries would still consider themselves to have free speach. Granted I fall on the "absolute" spectrum and free speach and strongly oppose hate speach laws, but you can have a principled belief in freedom of speech and oppose these kinds of speach.

 

Personally I am disgusted by the hate that you are saying these schools preach, as I am sure are most people here. And I certainly wouldn't condone any state funding for support for schools that do (and I doubt they get any). But if the actual academics are up to standards legally it's fine. Everyone is required to receive an education and schools are mandated to properly provide one to be recognized. Things taught or encouraged outside those subjects (and not against the law) are imo outside the preview of the state. 

I'd admit you are true yes, but the same people that are saying these schools should exist and operate are also the same people pushing for cracking down of anti gay and lgbt individuals in the academics... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've heard Roz you're an ignorant hate monger who tries to out demagogue 'The Donald', but what do I, someone so unrecognizable that you attempt to use it as an attack, possibly know?

Edited by HopelessSituation

Tiber-braindead.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've heard Roz you're an ignorant hate monger who tries to out demagogue 'The Donald', but what do I, someone so unrecognizable that you attempt to use it as an attack, possibly know?

First mistake is saying "from what i've heard"

Others opinions shouldn't be yours. From what i've heard jews are subhuman and America is the great Satan :)

 

Also you really are unrecognizable... 13 posts? And only 8 cities?

 

Edit: ofc i'm not a NeoNazi/believe jews are subhuman, nor am i the Iranian government. 

Edited by Ryleh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd admit you are true yes, but the same people that are saying these schools should exist and operate are also the same people pushing for cracking down of anti gay and lgbt individuals in the academics... 

 

I don't disagree that many cultural crusades (whatever their nature) are often self serving in who they do and don't choose to target. I don't have anything against public shaming and pressure campaigns against these schools either. And since this is eveidently the UK they will probably be shut down anyway. Just throwing out my 2¢ regarding the issue from an American constitutional perspective. 

 

Personally I don't think it has to be framed in terms of support or not support it (I certainly don't support it though I don't think they could have their diplomas invalidated over this). There are people who do support or turn a blind eye to this stuff for their own ideological purposes and they should be ashamed of themselves, but it's not a binary issue per se.

Edited by Mikey

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pandering that the left does to the religion of Islam is incredibly contradictory to any views that they might be pushing around ethno and gender rights. Frankly Islam is incompatible to the west on a fundamental level, and since we're here first we have the right to say they cannot teach their beliefs here if it conflicts with us on a fundamental level. If it doesn't, then the west can go to the middle east and push for them to our beliefs and philosophy system?

 

 

 

I'd say suppress or outlaw anything like this on an INSTITUTIONAL level. On the level of personal action and speech of course we should allow it, but not in schools. 

 

To be honest, Christianity includes several values that are contradictory to western society. From the things that I can remember from the top of my head, "women should be silent in the churches" has been taught in Christianity for centuries, with Puritan Christians in the time of Oliver Cromwell banning Christmas, alcohol and other things in the west, with same-sex activity outlawed in the UK since 1967 - with the discrimination brought in by Christians.

 

At the same time, we in the west need a foreign policy based on a policy of human rights, democracy and international law. We're guilty ourselves of some of this, during colonial times Europeans pushed their laws at the time on their colonies with lasting effects. We ourselves have come a long way towards achieving equal rights, and communities internationally are working in their own countries towards the same goal. We do not have the right to force our way through, but what we can do is push for changes through multinational organisations such as the EU, AU and UN, and as individual consumers we can start avoiding products from countries with poor human rights records, something that will be easier in time as clean energy allows us to leave Saudi oil and our economies begin to adapt when demand for products from certain countries falls. While we cannot invade a country or spread propaganda, we can hit them where it hurts - in the bank account.

 

What we need to do is start enforcing our current laws and give more funding to the bodies that already exist to stop this exact thing from being spread.

Untitled.png.a5280e76db3e7bedecea0a5e4d7b7daf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pandering that the left does to the religion of Islam is incredibly contradictory to any views that they might be pushing around ethno and gender rights. If my views varied between Muslims and others how would this topic even exist? Frankly Islam is incompatible to the west on a fundamental level I live near one of the two biggest Somali areas and it's perfectly compatible. since we're here first (You might want to check this because, uh....) we have the right to say they cannot teach their beliefs here if it conflicts with us on a fundamental level. No, we're actually quite specifically not permitted to do that. If it doesn't, then the west can go to the middle east and push for them to our beliefs and philosophy system? That went very well last time.

 

 

 

I'd say suppress or outlaw anything like this on an INSTITUTIONAL level. On the level of personal action and speech of course we should allow it, but not in schools. Schools actually make my argument more correct than before. Schools act in loco parentis, which is to say as the parents while they have custody of the child. Not only would they be permitted to use their free speech and free religion, they'd have full parental authority in doing what they were doing.

 

 

I mean you can support free speach and still oppose this. In Europe or Canada people teaching such messages would not only be forbidden but probably arrested, as people tend to be for hate speach. Most of those countries would still consider themselves to have free speach. The United States is very different about this kind of thing. There are very, very few exceptions to limit speech. This may work for other countries, but then so does the weird American obsession and also Constitutionally-protected right to retain guns.

 

Personally I am disgusted by the hate that you are saying these schools preach, as I am sure are most people here. I'm not sure if you're addressing Roz here or me, but I'm just as disgusted. I was appalled when the ACLU defended the rights of NeoNazis to march through Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish town. The Constitution is there to protect stuff we don't like. Why would we need to defend banning things people liked? And I certainly wouldut n't condone any state funding for support for schools that do (and I doubt they get any). But if the actual academics are up to standards legally it's fine. Everyone is required to receive an education and schools are mandated to properly provide one to be recognized. Things taught or encouraged outside those subjects (and not against the law) are imo outside the purview of the state. 

 

 

British interruption here since the sources were about the UK, US law does not apply etc etc.

 

Teaching that sexism, homophobia and racism are acceptable is not just wrong, in some cases it is illegal. Stopping it is illegal in the United States.

 

"Protected speech" comes with attached exceptions, for example in England and Wales there are active laws against hate speech (defined as speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnicity, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation). This does not just include specific words, but is context bound.

 

The simple fact is, some of the content is in violation of equality and anti-discrimination laws. In addition to this, actively promoting sexism, racism and homophobia can cause violent acts to happen. Words can have real consequences from all sides. Our Constitution trumps all of those laws so if they conflict it's pretty obvious which side will win.

 

I'm extremely fortunate to live in the UK, in one of the top 50 state run schools and under the protection provided by UK law which the LGBT community has had to fight consistently for. The legal protection given to us is extremely important. Only just recently, after many attempts the Greens proposed  compulsory education on relationships which also include ending violence towards women (which also has further implications to said teaching) which has now been passed, which will now force all institutions to follow the curriculum set by the DoE and other bodies. Laws dictate the right to free speech (sadly Katie Hopkins seems to be exempt from this) - the concern here is not if it is acceptable, but why Ofsted, the DoE and Ofqual (the relevant UK bodies) are not doing enough about this in other areas of the UK.

 

 

I'd admit you are true yes, but the same people that are saying these schools should exist and operate are also the same people pushing for cracking down of anti gay and lgbt individuals in the academics...  No, those are called Mormons. Different religion that live in Utah.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What we need to do is start enforcing our current laws and give more funding to the bodies that already exist to stop this exact thing from being spread. We have no laws to limit or stop this. If we did and it went against the Constitution the law loses.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.