What is the future of the Republican Party?

[ZRod]

3 hours ago, Ulty said:

 

In the tweet Archy posted above, this is the picture that was linked to the "depiction of molestation":

The horror!!!

What age group are we talking about here? I mean this is probably an 8th grade and up kind of thing to be reading.

 

The stupid part in all this is the teachers get punished when they probably submitted the lesson plan to the principal and they ok'ed it, but there's no consequences for them.

[suh_fan93]

 

[Ulty]

10 hours ago, ZRod said:

What age group are we talking about here? I mean this is probably an 8th grade and up kind of thing to be reading.

 

It was an 8th grade class. And for bonus points, do you know how old the author was?

[Ulty]

15 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Well, I guess what’s the lesson plan?   How to get someone to show you your tits by playing the friend card? 

I mean, you were just talking about "relevant context" one post earlier. This was a single page from the diary of a teenage girl, with much more important historical context overall, while also being relevant to the thoughts and feelings of the middle school students who were reading this.

 

You posted a link that said that falsely said this was a "depiction of molestation." That kind of hysteria leads to books getting banned and teachers getting fired. The statement from the school district sounds like something that Goebbels himself might have written. 

 

What else do kids in middle school read as part of the approved curriculum? Violence, sex, drugs, murder, and politics are often central themes, and kids of that age are able and ready to explore those things. Especially from something as historically important as the Diary of Anne Frank.

 

This is Anne Frank, no one sees the irony here? So here's the lesson plan: we should read books instead of banning them.

[teachercd]

3 hours ago, Ulty said:

I mean, you were just talking about "relevant context" one post earlier. This was a single page from the diary of a teenage girl, with much more important historical context overall, while also being relevant to the thoughts and feelings of the middle school students who were reading this.

 

You posted a link that said that falsely said this was a "depiction of molestation." That kind of hysteria leads to books getting banned and teachers getting fired. The statement from the school district sounds like something that Goebbels himself might have written. 

 

What else do kids in middle school read as part of the approved curriculum? Violence, sex, drugs, murder, and politics are often central themes, and kids of that age are able and ready to explore those things. Especially from something as historically important as the Diary of Anne Frank.

 

This is Anne Frank, no one sees the irony here?

My class read this, for 10 years, this part was never in the version we read.  8th graders at the time.

 

I would 100% have skipped it if it was in the version I had to read.  There would be no way I would be dealing with the kids (especially the boys) insane reactions. 

 

 

[Ulty]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

My class read this, for 10 years, this part was never in the version we read.  8th graders at the time.

 

I would 100% have skipped it if it was in the version I had to read.  There would be no way I would be dealing with the kids (especially the boys) insane reactions. 

 

 

Sounds like thoughtful, responsible teaching. That is also very different than banning the book, firing teachers, or pretending that a teenager's curiosity about sex is pornographic or a depiction of molestation. 

[teachercd]

16 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Sounds like thoughtful, responsible teaching. That is also very different than banning the book, firing teachers, or pretending that a teenager's curiosity about sex is pornographic or a depiction of molestation. 

I agree.  It is why we need "normies" out of teacher/education.  If you don't teach you don't need to get involved in education.  

 

Normies don't know what it is like, how could they?  It is like when normies try to tell cops how to police.  Ummmm, they don't know what it is like to be a cop, so shut up.

 

Now, I think we all agree we can stick our nose in when it comes to firefighters but that is clearly different.  99% of their job is sleeping, lifting weights, walking around the parking lot listening to podcasts, washing the trucks (or their own trucks) and making food...or and watching sports.

 

99% of normies are totally fine.  As you know.  It is the 1% that ruin it for everyone.

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Ulty said:

15 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I mean, you were just talking about "relevant context" one post earlier. This was a single page from the diary of a teenage girl, with much more important historical context overall, while also being relevant to the thoughts and feelings of the middle school students who were reading this.

To be fair, it’s not from the diary of a teenage girl, it’s an illustrated take on the diary of a teenage girl.  You may not have been aware, Anne Frank didn’t write and illustrate that particular book

I believe this graphic novel version takes about 5% of the actual Diary of Anne Frank into account from what the author states.  Was there not a better 5% to discuss?  

 

[Ulty]

23 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

To be fair, it’s not from the diary of a teenage girl, it’s an illustrated take on the diary of a teenage girl.  You may not have been aware, Anne Frank didn’t write and illustrate that particular book

I believe this graphic novel version takes about 5% of the actual Diary of Anne Frank into account from what the author states.  Was there not a better 5% to discuss?  

 

"Better" is subjective. If the adaptation indeed only takes 5% of the original text, it is perfectly fine to debate which parts would be the most poignant depending on what message is being attempted. Obviously the graphic/comic adaptation does not capture the entirety of the original text...does it capture the spirit and lessons in the same way? I have no idea.

 

If you are arguing that there are different and better ways to teach the content...you are right. That is a question of pedagogy. But if this were merely an issue of pedagogy, we wouldn't be talking about removing books, firing teachers, and pretending that 8th grade curiosity of sex is offensive. 

 

And yes, these were Anne Frank's own words from my understanding. A middle school-aged girl herself. Is middle school too young to be curious about sexuality? Is middle school too young to learn the realities of the holocaust? The illustrations in this book (that were posted here) were certainly nothing offensive. Even if the "adaptation" made some changes (which is likely, I presume), what, in any of the content, is so objectionable that it justifies this kind of reaction? 

 

You agreed that the teacher should not have been fired for this. Do you agree that the questionable passage is a depiction of molestation (since you are the one who posted that in this thread, for the sake of "relevant context")? Or do you agree that this is more misplaced right-wing hysteria? 

[teachercd]

11 minutes ago, Ulty said:

"Better" is subjective. If the adaptation indeed only takes 5% of the original text, it is perfectly fine to debate which parts would be the most poignant depending on what message is being attempted. Obviously the graphic/comic adaptation does not capture the entirety of the original text...does it capture the spirit and lessons in the same way? I have no idea.

 

If you are arguing that there are different and better ways to teach the content...you are right. That is a question of pedagogy. But if this were merely an issue of pedagogy, we wouldn't be talking about removing books, firing teachers, and pretending that 8th grade curiosity of sex is offensive. 

 

And yes, these were Anne Frank's own words from my understanding. A middle school-aged girl herself. Is middle school too young to be curious about sexuality? Is middle school too young to learn the realities of the holocaust? The illustrations in this book (that were posted here) were certainly nothing offensive. Even if the "adaptation" made some changes (which is likely, I presume), what, in any of the content, is so objectionable that it justifies this kind of reaction? 

 

You agreed that the teacher should not have been fired for this. Do you agree that the questionable passage is a depiction of molestation (since you are the one who posted that in this thread, for the sake of "relevant context")? Or do you agree that this is more misplaced right-wing hysteria? 

While I do not agree, by definition this would fall under SA.

 

Sexual  Assaults include any type of unwanted sexual activity expressed by one person toward another either overtly or in a subtle manner.

 

With that said, so does a boy mooning another boy in the locker room.  But I again do not agree that it is SA.  Just that the definition is broad enough to create a rather sticky situation.

 

I had an "incident" years ago, two guys horse-playing before practice in the locker room.  One of the kids ended up on the ground and the other kid hit is butt.  Both kids were clothed and I think in pads already, I can't remember.  Seemed like no big deal

 

But then it was.  Kid got booted from school for it and "SA" was brought up in a meeting.  Seemed insane to me.

 

 

 

[Ulty]

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

While I do not agree, by definition this would fall under SA.

 

What would fall under SA? Reading a book? What does your post have to do with any of this?

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, Ulty said:

What would fall under SA? Reading a book? What does your post have to do with any of this?

The depiction of her advances would fall under SA.  The last 3 "scenes". You asked if it was molesting or not.  

 

Which means now you have to explain that to students.  

 

this seems like something teachers don't need to have on their plate.  

 

No books should be banned.  

 

[Ulty]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

The depiction of her advances would fall under SA.  The last 3 "scenes". You asked if it was molesting or not.  

You know how you get annoyed when other people talk about teaching practices when it is clearly outside their lane? 

I actually investigate sexual misconduct, and you are being absurd. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Which means now you have to explain that to students.  

 

this seems like something teachers don't need to have on their plate. 

You're the teacher: isn't it a teacher's job to explain things to students? When a character does something inappropriate, isn't it a great opportunity to discuss it? Middle schoolers and high schoolers read books about violence, drugs, race, sex, and politics all the time because it provides these opportunities.  

[Archy1221]

56 minutes ago, Ulty said:

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

"Better" is subjective. If the adaptation indeed only takes 5% of the original text, it is perfectly fine to debate which parts would be the most poignant depending on what message is being attempted.

Which is what I thought was currently going on with us, debating the appropriateness of the graphic novel but then you had to go Indiana Jones and name calling while claiming something I’m not claiming (banning books) cause you couldn’t handle a debate

 

59 minutes ago, Ulty said:

Obviously the graphic/comic adaptation does not capture the entirety of the original text.

We know, yet in an earlier post you made a claim it was one of the most read, greatest books when it was actually the graphic novel being spoken about and not The Diary of Anne Frank 

 

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

 

And yes, these were Anne Frank's own words from my understanding. A middle school-aged girl herself. Is middle school too young to be curious about sexuality? Is middle school too young to learn the realities of the holocaust? The illustrations in this book (that were posted here) were certainly nothing offensive. Even if the "adaptation" made some changes (which is likely, I presume), what, in any of the content, is so objectionable that it justifies this kind of reaction? 

Again, what’s the lesson plan with what was shown?  Certainly not the realities of the holocaust like you suggest above?  Of all the possibilities to read from in Anne Franks book, you think that passage shown was the most warranted want for pedagogy 

 

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

 

You agreed that the teacher should not have been fired for this. Do you agree that the questionable passage is a depiction of molestation (since you are the one who posted that in this thread, for the sake of "relevant context")? Or do you agree that this is more misplaced right-wing hysteria? 

The teacher should not have been fired.  People who do pedagogy should be given second chances just like anyone else, unless it’s a super egregious situation like harming a student.  
 

I don’t believe the passage is molestation, yet the post you replied to talked about more than that which you are finally acknowledging which was the entire point Ben Collins wouldn’t share.   
The answer to your last question is no IMO.  The person doing pedagogy should not have been fired and the book should have not been used in Middle School IMO.  Pretty open and shut without hysteria from me.  

[teachercd]

55 minutes ago, Ulty said:

You know how you get annoyed when other people talk about teaching practices when it is clearly outside their lane? 

I actually investigate sexual misconduct, and you are being absurd. 

 

 

You're the teacher: isn't it a teacher's job to explain things to students? When a character does something inappropriate, isn't it a great opportunity to discuss it? Middle schoolers and high schoolers read books about violence, drugs, race, sex, and politics all the time because it provides these opportunities.  

No no no.  I am saying IT IS NOT SA.  It falls under the "definition" of SA but I don't think it is just as you don't think it is.

 

So, are you saying the character did something inappropriate?  Because your first sentence says that I am being absurd and it was not inappropriate.  See the issue, if we teachers take one side on this topic, we lose, if we take the other side on the topic, we lose.