RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Pat]

... and the influence that comes with being a star means they're surrounded by lickspittles who just nod at their most inane or idiotic statements. They're uninformed, rarely hear a contrary opinion, and are completely out of touch with regular people. Yet they have a massive platform, and a disproportionate voice.

I know several celebrities. Two top A-list. They really, genuinely are just regular people. They are not surrounded by lickspittles who just nod at their most inane or idiotic statements. They are as well informed or uninformed as anyone else I know. They hear contrary opinions all the time. They hang out with regular people.

The mythology built around celebrities which you presented however does come from a bubble of people who think just like you, who don't happen to know any people who are celebrities who they claim to know all about their lifestyles. They think all celebrities are like Gwenyth Paltrow or a Khardasian when those are the exceptions to the rule of celebrity lifestyles.

And you're taking your very narrow experience and generalizing it to claim they're all just regular folks. Except we have abundant evidence that there are an abnormal number of your "exceptions". Just look at how many come across as complete idiots, when they open their mouths. Or all the news, and Hollywood stories by them and about them, that talk about the toxic culture of narcissism and kowtowing. And it's completely ignoring their power, or how their job involves at least to some degree seeking attention, or the nature of social media, or how attention begets attention even when its not merited, or the feedback cycle it creates, or how fundamentally different your life is when you have $40 million not $40,000 or $400.

Some manage to stay humble. If you watched Drinker's video, you'd see a few exceptions highlighted. But there are lot more Platrows than you're suggesting.

[HappyDaze]

It seems like there is disagreement about what the Florida law says.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the bill since the usual suspects started calling it the "Don't say gay" bill, in an attempt to confuse the issue.

oggsmash holds that the law would ban reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" (and is glad of this), while Ratman_tf think it would be allowed as long as the material is age-appropriate. One can read the book here on the Internet Archive among other places (it's very quick to read as it's a children's picture book):

https://archive.org/details/heatherhastwomom00newm/

Restricted access. I can only see the covers.

It was controversial when it was first published in 1989, and is evidently still controversial today.

In terms of legality, I would agree with oggsmash. I think that the Florida law would ban reading the book to kids. The relevant clause of the law says the following:

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 in accordance with state standards.

I read this as banning all instruction on sexual orientation in grades K-3. The "or" clause is an additional restriction. And I believe reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" would be considered instruction on sexual orientation. That said, I also think that reading it is quite appropriate to kindergarten students.

Discussion in class is part of instruction if it is authorized by the teacher. I'm certain that the law would indeed be invoked if, for example, kids were to be read a story with LGBT characters, like "Heather Has Two Mommies".

I haven't read said book. It's probably fine, as long as it's age appropriate, just like the bill says. And if it's not age-appropriate, then it shouldn't be taught to young children.

Do you honestly think that such story time would be allowed under the law? Or, for example, that kids could be taught about the LGBT civil rights movement without invoking the law?

Don't conflate the two topics. Teaching about civil rights is not an issue under the bill.

I think teaching about specifically LGBT civil rights is an issue under the bill. How could one teach about Harvey Milk or Jim Obergefell or other key figures of LGBT civil rights without talking about sexual orientation?

You can mention sexual orientation. You just can't teach about sexual orientation K-3 or 4+ without parental approval of the subject matter. It's right in the bill.
You can say "Gay". You can't teach that Gay is X or Y.* It's not hard.

The key thing is K-3, or 4+ without transparency. That's what I think has got some people pissed off about this bill. They don't want parents involved in their children's education regarding certain progressive topics. And that's a huge red flag.

So what happens when someone does say gay and you can't offer even an objective definition?

[jhkim]

oggsmash holds that the law would ban reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" (and is glad of this), while Ratman_tf think it would be allowed as long as the material is age-appropriate. One can read the book here on the Internet Archive among other places (it's very quick to read as it's a children's picture book):

https://archive.org/details/heatherhastwomom00newm/

Restricted access. I can only see the covers.

Sorry. It's free to view with registration. I looked but I couldn't find a copy that doesn't require registration.

I think teaching about specifically LGBT civil rights is an issue under the bill. How could one teach about Harvey Milk or Jim Obergefell or other key figures of LGBT civil rights without talking about sexual orientation?

You can mention sexual orientation. You just can't teach about sexual orientation K-3 or 4+ without parental approval of the subject matter. It's right in the bill.
You can say "Gay". You can't teach that Gay is X or Y. It's not hard.

First of all, I'm not convinced that this is true. We both see the same wording, which is vague and broad. I feel that a kindergarten reading of "Heather Has Two Mommies" would likely be sued under this law, and the courts would have to determine it - and it would be a huge mess for the school system. I'm also convinced that a 2nd or 3rd grade lesson on Harvey Milk, for example, would also likely be sued using this law.

You interpret that a teacher can say "gay" but they're not allowed to define it. But kids in K-3 may not know what "gay" means - or may have major misconceptions about what it means. I can't picture teaching a 3rd grade lesson on Harvey Milk, for example, without kids knowing what "gay" means.

[Melichor]

Ron Perlman specifically implied that the Florida law violates the First Amendment, which it doesn't.

On the other hand, the law is very broadly worded to ban all discussion of LGBT people - which is pure prejudice. Hetero romance is constantly packaged for preschoolers and younger in G-rated Disney cartoons and elsewhere, but LGBT relationships are considered an adults-only topic.

Here's the text of the Bill:  https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

Section 3: 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 in accordance with state standards.

Can you point out how it is "broadly worded to ban all discussion of LGBT people"?

I get that progressives don't want to yield any ground here, but...
This Bill gives parents more transparency into what is happening with their children while they are in school. As a parent and grandparent, I think this is critically important.

[Shasarak]

So what happens when someone does say gay and you can't offer even an objective definition?

Teachers are not Biologists so how are they really supposed to know?

[jhkim]

Here's the text of the Bill:  https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

Section 3: 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 in accordance with state standards.

Can you point out how it is "broadly worded to ban all discussion of LGBT people"?

Thanks, Melichor. I posted that same quote earlier. It bans all instruction on sexual orientation. I don't see how you can teach about LGBT people without at least defining what being gay (and other terms) mean - which would be classroom instruction on sexual orientation.

I gave two specific examples earlier -- reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" to a kindergarten class, and a 3rd grade civil rights lesson on Harvey Milk. I believe that either of these would be sued under the Florida law, and it would be up to the courts to determine if the content violated it.

[Mistwell]

You can mention sexual orientation. You just can't teach about sexual orientation K-3 or 4+ without parental approval of the subject matter. It's right in the bill.
You can say "Gay". You can't teach that Gay is X or Y.* It's not hard.

I think you're making a pretty wobbly distinction there. If a teacher says something to students, how is that not considered "teaching"? "Teaching" is just "the work of a teacher." How is "things the teacher says to the students during school in class" not "the work of a teacher?" It sure as heck would be considered work for worker's compensation laws for instance.

If a kid has two female parents and they mention it in class (and they do - kids mention their parents in class), how is the teacher not "instructing" (which is just "teaching" which is, again, just the work of a teacher) about sexual orientation to respond about it?  And if you can say "gay" how would the context not be such that you're teaching what gay is? Teachers teach through context all the time.

And more importantly, why do you think teachers won't be concerned about these kinds of issues and feel that pressure in a way which will chill their speech?

It's a pretty poorly written law. I understand what their motivations are but I don't think those motivations are well thought out in terms of the legalize they chose to use.

[Ratman_tf]

It seems like there is disagreement about what the Florida law says. oggsmash holds that the law would ban reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" (and is glad of this), while Ratman_tf think it would be allowed as long as the material is age-appropriate. One can read the book here on the Internet Archive among other places (it's very quick to read as it's a children's picture book):

https://archive.org/details/heatherhastwomom00newm/

It was controversial when it was first published in 1989, and is evidently still controversial today.

In terms of legality, I would agree with oggsmash. I think that the Florida law would ban reading the book to kids. The relevant clause of the law says the following:

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 in accordance with state standards.

I read this as banning all instruction on sexual orientation in grades K-3. The "or" clause is an additional restriction. And I believe reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" would be considered instruction on sexual orientation. That said, I also think that reading it is quite appropriate to kindergarten students.

Discussion in class is part of instruction if it is authorized by the teacher. I'm certain that the law would indeed be invoked if, for example, kids were to be read a story with LGBT characters, like "Heather Has Two Mommies".

I haven't read said book. It's probably fine, as long as it's age appropriate, just like the bill says. And if it's not age-appropriate, then it shouldn't be taught to young children.

Do you honestly think that such story time would be allowed under the law? Or, for example, that kids could be taught about the LGBT civil rights movement without invoking the law?

Don't conflate the two topics. Teaching about civil rights is not an issue under the bill.

I think teaching about specifically LGBT civil rights is an issue under the bill. How could one teach about Harvey Milk or Jim Obergefell or other key figures of LGBT civil rights without talking about sexual orientation?

Do you REALLY teach about civil rights to kindergarden aged children? REALLY?

It's as if people are constructing preposterous situations in order to criticize the bill.

[Ratman_tf]

oggsmash holds that the law would ban reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" (and is glad of this), while Ratman_tf think it would be allowed as long as the material is age-appropriate. One can read the book here on the Internet Archive among other places (it's very quick to read as it's a children's picture book):

https://archive.org/details/heatherhastwomom00newm/

Restricted access. I can only see the covers.

Sorry. It's free to view with registration. I looked but I couldn't find a copy that doesn't require registration.

I think teaching about specifically LGBT civil rights is an issue under the bill. How could one teach about Harvey Milk or Jim Obergefell or other key figures of LGBT civil rights without talking about sexual orientation?

You can mention sexual orientation. You just can't teach about sexual orientation K-3 or 4+ without parental approval of the subject matter. It's right in the bill.
You can say "Gay". You can't teach that Gay is X or Y. It's not hard.

First of all, I'm not convinced that this is true. We both see the same wording, which is vague and broad. I feel that a kindergarten reading of "Heather Has Two Mommies" would likely be sued under this law, and the courts would have to determine it - and it would be a huge mess for the school system. I'm also convinced that a 2nd or 3rd grade lesson on Harvey Milk, for example, would also likely be sued using this law.

You interpret that a teacher can say "gay" but they're not allowed to define it. But kids in K-3 may not know what "gay" means - or may have major misconceptions about what it means. I can't picture teaching a 3rd grade lesson on Harvey Milk, for example, without kids knowing what "gay" means.

As pointed out, what 2nd-3rd grade students are going to grasp the nuances of gay civil rights? When he started to go to school, my nephew got my sister in a lot of hot water because he didn't understand about sex, and told his friends that he had had sex with his mother. When the administrators and teachers found out, you may imagine the hell she had to go through to convince people she wasn't abusing her son.

These are the people we're going to explain gay civil rights to?

[Ratman_tf]

You can mention sexual orientation. You just can't teach about sexual orientation K-3 or 4+ without parental approval of the subject matter. It's right in the bill.
You can say "Gay". You can't teach that Gay is X or Y.* It's not hard.

I think you're making a pretty wobbly distinction there. If a teacher says something to students, how is that not considered "teaching"? "Teaching" is just "the work of a teacher." How is "things the teacher says to the students during school in class" not "the work of a teacher?" It sure as heck would be considered work for worker's compensation laws for instance.

Speaking of wobbly distinctions. If you're going to broaden the definition of instruction to "The work of the teacher", then part of work is taking breaks. So is going to the bathroom to take a whizz instruction?

If a kid has two female parents and they mention it in class (and they do - kids mention their parents in class), how is the teacher not "instructing" (which is just "teaching" which is, again, just the work of a teacher) about sexual orientation to respond about it?  And if you can say "gay" how would the context not be such that you're teaching what gay is? Teachers teach through context all the time.

What's to respond to? If a child mentions they have two mommies, in class, the teacher doesn't have to comment. And if any child has questions, they can be told to ask their parents.

And more importantly, why do you think teachers won't be concerned about these kinds of issues and feel that pressure in a way which will chill their speech?

Teachers should be concerned over talking about sexual orientation and gender identity to kindergardners.

It's a pretty poorly written law. I understand what their motivations are but I don't think those motivations are well thought out in terms of the legalize they chose to use.

And I disagree. We'll see what develops.

[jhkim]

As pointed out, what 2nd-3rd grade students are going to grasp the nuances of gay civil rights? When he started to go to school, my nephew got my sister in a lot of hot water because he didn't understand about sex, and told his friends that he had had sex with his mother. When the administrators and teachers found out, you may imagine the hell she had to go through to convince people she wasn't abusing her son.

These are the people we're going to explain gay civil rights to?

Elementary school children aren't go to understand the nuances of democracy either - does that mean they shouldn't be taught about our country's government? Just because they aren't going to grasp all the nuances of a subject doesn't mean that subject shouldn't be taught. I happen to think that civil rights should be taught. Even elementary school kids should know the basics of American history.

But civil rights was just one example. The bigger point is justifying a ban on LGBT appearing at any time. Your example of your nephew is talking about the act of sex. I wouldn't expect elementary school kids to know about the act of sex. But being gay isn't about the act of sex any more than being straight is about the act of sex. It is appropriate for kids in K-3 to know about romantic relationships, marriage, families, divorce and adoption. These things all appear in G-rated movies, and are regularly mentioned in ordinary classroom discussion.

It would cause no controversy if kids read a book about a princess who falls in love with a prince, kisses him, and marries him. But I claim the same story would be banned if it were about two princesses - and you don't seem to be arguing that point. Straight relationships are fair game to be included in K-3, but gay relationships aren't. That is clear prejudice, in my opinion.

[Ghostmaker]

As pointed out, what 2nd-3rd grade students are going to grasp the nuances of gay civil rights? When he started to go to school, my nephew got my sister in a lot of hot water because he didn't understand about sex, and told his friends that he had had sex with his mother. When the administrators and teachers found out, you may imagine the hell she had to go through to convince people she wasn't abusing her son.

These are the people we're going to explain gay civil rights to?

Elementary school children aren't go to understand the nuances of democracy either - does that mean they shouldn't be taught about our country's government? Just because they aren't going to grasp all the nuances of a subject doesn't mean that subject shouldn't be taught. I happen to think that civil rights should be taught. Even elementary school kids should know the basics of American history.

But civil rights was just one example. The bigger point is justifying a ban on LGBT appearing at any time. Your example of your nephew is talking about the act of sex. I wouldn't expect elementary school kids to know about the act of sex. But being gay isn't about the act of sex any more than being straight is about the act of sex. It is appropriate for kids in K-3 to know about romantic relationships, marriage, families, divorce and adoption. These things all appear in G-rated movies, and are regularly mentioned in ordinary classroom discussion.

It would cause no controversy if kids read a book about a princess who falls in love with a prince, kisses him, and marries him. But I claim the same story would be banned if it were about two princesses - and you don't seem to be arguing that point. Straight relationships are fair game to be included in K-3, but gay relationships aren't. That is clear prejudice, in my opinion.

Are you stupid, or a closeted perv?

First, there are ways to approach this that don't involve explicit discussion of sex or gender. As kids grow up, they learn to see and understand complexity -- that's why the courses in math in high school are different from the ones taught in elementary school.

Second, it is entirely fucking inappropriate to suggest that children should be given deep instruction on sex and gender identity, while recommending (and this has been seen in materials leaked from a number of teachers and districts) that parents not be told. That is grooming 101, friend, and it will not end well.

If the left wants to die on this hill, fine. But they WILL die. There's an awful lot of parents who get feisty about their kids.

[oggsmash]

   I can understand how it would REALLY upset some people when a behavior HEAVILY influenced by environment, may not have the fertile environment to encourage said behavior any more in every place in the country.   How sad.  k-3 there need be no discussions of homo or hetero sexual.  Write a note, send it to the parents and tell them "blah blah asked what this means".  Done.  It is a one in a thousand thing.  There is also the option that if people are harshly offended by a state's policies, they can in fact just leave.   In this case, it seems the activists are extremely triggered they will not be able to have the "proper environment" to encourage the behaviors they prefer among the normies (people who generally just slog along to get through the day, pick the kids up from school, take em to activities, feed em, put em to bed and start again in the morn and are detached from every little policy in a school) and are pretty triggered it seems the normally quiet normies are largely in agreement with the florida law.   I thought we all were for democracy?  Or are we only for democracy when it goes our way?

[Eirikrautha]

See, this is why I support free speech so strongly.   In an echo chamber, you can just shut down discussion before you get to anything substantial.  But here you get to let the leftists talk until their stupid outs itself.

But civil rights was just one example. The bigger point is justifying a ban on LGBT appearing at any time. Your example of your nephew is talking about the act of sex. I wouldn't expect elementary school kids to know about the act of sex. But being gay isn't about the act of sex any more than being straight is about the act of sex. It is appropriate for kids in K-3 to know about romantic relationships, marriage, families, divorce and adoption. These things all appear in G-rated movies, and are regularly mentioned in ordinary classroom discussion.

Being gay isn't about the act of sex?  That's easily the most moronic thing said here in a while.  It, by definition, is about who you are sexually attracted to.  As is heterosexualality.   I can love my brother without wanting to have sex with him.  But that doesn't make me gay (or incestuous).  The very definition of gay is same-sex sexual attraction.  Just like the definition of family is based on reproduction and the raising of children.  Before we get to the leftist canard about older people marrying who can't have kids, we structure the process based around its normal usage.  We don't ban old people from marrying, but we could and it wouldn't change the purpose of the family one bit.  So, once again, the liberal world view only makes sense when you redefine words and concepts in such a way that is contrary to reality.

It would cause no controversy if kids read a book about a princess who falls in love with a prince, kisses him, and marries him. But I claim the same story would be banned if it were about two princesses - and you don't seem to be arguing that point. Straight relationships are fair game to be included in K-3, but gay relationships aren't. That is clear prejudice, in my opinion.

Yep.  It's as much prejudice as manufacturing five fingered gloves is.  Because, for 97+% of the children out there, they have one mommy.  The norm is what is taught.  And LGBTQWERTY is not the norm, either statistically or socially.  We can't teach every fringe lifestyle in school (should we also include "Heather Has Four Mommies" for the Mormon kids, too?), nor should we.

Oh, and by the way, Harvey Milk was a pedophile supporter of Jim Jones.  Anyone who teaches about him to young children should be arrested...

[Pat]

I have a simple question: Even if the law did prohibit teachers from talking about gay people, so what? What's wrong with saying "you should ask your parents?" Why can't parents set ground rules when they hire strangers to teach their children?