Media Bias

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

So somebody who thinks “minor attracted person” is a completely unnecessary term is an a$$hole?  Asking for a friend.

Actually, I hadn’t read the whole thread and thought the conversation was about something else. 
 

Ignore me and carry on. 

[teachercd]

24 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Hey hey hey. Don’t call them racists. They don’t like that term. They prefer skin tone decision makers. Not all of them go to every cross burning and they would appreciate our understanding.

Amen and I appreciate the discussion with them!  Ha

[knapplc]

The problem with the "don't say gay" movement is they'll use examples like those posted earlier - which are clearly wrong - and use that to stifle all talk about anything related to LGBTQ in K-12 education, and that's also clearly wrong.

 

Extremes like these teachers should be dealt with, we can all agree on that. But these people are not a reason to prosecute teachers at the school system's expense because Timmy wants to tell his kindergarten class about what his two moms do at work. 

 

This is a classic example of government overreach. 

[teachercd]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The problem with the "don't say gay" movement is they'll use examples like those posted earlier - which are clearly wrong - and use that to stifle all talk about anything related to LGBTQ in K-12 education, and that's also clearly wrong.

 

Extremes like these teachers should be dealt with, we can all agree on that. But these people are not a reason to prosecute teachers at the school system's expense because Timmy wants to tell his kindergarten class about what his two moms do at work. 

 

This is a classic example of government overreach. 

Yep and yep!

 

 

[Lorewarn]

5 hours ago, teachercd said:

Trying to defend that because you feel like it sort of falls under the flag of your political party is nuts and you know it.

 

I don't have a political party, but I do absolutely strive to give everyone dignity that I can, especially the ones that society casts aside.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s amazing people defend that kinda stuff

 

Who's defending and what kinda stuff? 

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

I don't have a political party, but I do absolutely strive to give everyone dignity that I can, especially the ones that society casts aside.

 

 

 

 

Who's defending and what kinda stuff? 

Awesome.  You do you!

[admo]

17 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

I 100% agree with @DevoHusker on this.

 

1st- Totally inappropriate for him to be addressing transgender to K-2 students.

 

2nd- No teacher should put out on social media to “f#&% them” referencing their parents.

 

3rd- I don’t care the guy’s rationale, pedophiles are not and shouldn’t be referred to as “minor attracted persons”. Why in TF should anyone want to try to normalize deviant pedophiles because some of them prefer MAP. It’s wrong so eff that guy.

[Scarlet]

 

[Danny Bateman]

11 hours ago, knapplc said:

The problem with the "don't say gay" movement is they'll use examples like those posted earlier - which are clearly wrong - and use that to stifle all talk about anything related to LGBTQ in K-12 education, and that's also clearly wrong.

 

Extremes like these teachers should be dealt with, we can all agree on that. But these people are not a reason to prosecute teachers at the school system's expense because Timmy wants to tell his kindergarten class about what his two moms do at work. 

 

This is a classic example of government overreach. 

 

I had a similar thought. 

 

Earlier in this conversation, someone used the word "normal." That's a word I don't use a lot at work, because when working with people who have hurt themselves and are trying to rehab to improve function/return home/whatever, depending on how they interpret that word, it may make them feel deficient or bad about themselves by implying they're NOT normal, and a lot of them are fragile, and I don't want to do that anyway.

 

What's regrettable about this current situation and wider discussion people are having is there are lots of "normal" trans, non-binary, etc. folks out there who don't behave in ways that are clearly socially unacceptable or controversial. Sure they might not share a ton in common with you or me but that's fine. They're just ordinary people who want to live their life and do their thing.

 

It seems like right now there's a lot of wide, sweeping generalizations lumping this latter group in, if not outright accusing them, of pedophilia and/or preying on children. Frankly it's disappointing and lazy as hell. The term "groomer" is getting tossed around in some circles as a lazy slur to be used against those with whom you disagree. 

 

I hope the focus on cases like the ones that have already been posted here doesn't catch those "normal" folks in the crossfire. It would be very easy to see enough of those flagrant cases and just subconsciously think "trans bad" when that's not really the case. But I do think some folks would prefer it that way.

[Lorewarn]

7 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

Earlier in this conversation, someone used the word "normal." That's a word I don't use a lot at work, because when working with people who have hurt themselves and are trying to rehab to improve function/return home/whatever, depending on how they interpret that word, it may make them feel deficient or bad about themselves by implying they're NOT normal, and a lot of them are fragile, and I don't want to do that anyway.

 

 

Way too many people keep treating mental health, and being mentally fragile, as a sign of weakness or poor spirit/toughness. Nah, you can be the toughest person imaginable and still have the forces of hate and scorn and mocking and discrimination and humiliation against you be tougher than you still. 

 

Plenty of folks would do well to share your perspective, and then extrapolate it to be applicable not just to physical health but mental health as well. Large parts of this larger conversation culturally would be nearly as necessary.

 

 

[JJ Husker]

16 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I had a similar thought. 

 

Earlier in this conversation, someone used the word "normal." That's a word I don't use a lot at work, because when working with people who have hurt themselves and are trying to rehab to improve function/return home/whatever, depending on how they interpret that word, it may make them feel deficient or bad about themselves by implying they're NOT normal, and a lot of them are fragile, and I don't want to do that anyway.

 

What's regrettable about this current situation and wider discussion people are having is there are lots of "normal" trans, non-binary, etc. folks out there who don't behave in ways that are clearly socially unacceptable or controversial. Sure they might not share a ton in common with you or me but that's fine. They're just ordinary people who want to live their life and do their thing.

 

It seems like right now there's a lot of wide, sweeping generalizations lumping this latter group in, if not outright accusing them, of pedophilia and/or preying on children. Frankly it's disappointing and lazy as hell. The term "groomer" is getting tossed around in some circles as a lazy slur to be used against those with whom you disagree. 

 

I hope the focus on cases like the ones that have already been posted here doesn't catch those "normal" folks in the crossfire. It would be very easy to see enough of those flagrant cases and just subconsciously think "trans bad" when that's not really the case. But I do think some folks would prefer it that way.

That was probably me using the word normal. Actually I am very aware when I use it. I know many take offense to it’s use. But to clarify, I don’t use it to label LGBTQ etc. as abnormal (even though I realize many take it that way). When I use normal referring to people, in my mind it applies to everyone equally and is intended to mean those who behave and act normally or better yet, those who don’t act in the extremes. I may be wrong I think most people (the normals if you will) simply go about their business and don’t call undue attention to their differences. I mean after all we are all unique with our own quirks. Sexual orientation and preference are just some of the things contributing to our differences. But I do feel there are people who act abnormally or outside the realm of how most people would act or more precisely, how I would hope they act. Unfortunately I don’t get to define how people should behave so it’s usually taken the wrong way.

 

Sorry for the tangent.

[Danny Bateman]

On 4/22/2022 at 2:58 PM, JJ Husker said:

That was probably me using the word normal. Actually I am very aware when I use it. I know many take offense to it’s use. But to clarify, I don’t use it to label LGBTQ etc. as abnormal (even though I realize many take it that way). When I use normal referring to people, in my mind it applies to everyone equally and is intended to mean those who behave and act normally or better yet, those who don’t act in the extremes. I may be wrong I think most people (the normals if you will) simply go about their business and don’t call undue attention to their differences. I mean after all we are all unique with our own quirks. Sexual orientation and preference are just some of the things contributing to our differences. But I do feel there are people who act abnormally or outside the realm of how most people would act or more precisely, how I would hope they act. Unfortunately I don’t get to define how people should behave so it’s usually taken the wrong way.

 

Sorry for the tangent.

 

No need to apologize. Your thoughts are always welcome here. I understand your point regarding LGBTQ folks who aren't looking to draw attention to themselves and I think that's reasonable. There are definitely folks in this community who are wired to be more performative or controversial with their behavior and they should be judged on the merits of their actual behavior.

 

As I alluded to in my other recent post, I definitely think there's an underlying agenda from some folks to lump them all together and chuck the lot of them under the bus (for religious and/or bigoted reasons) so I just think we need to be mindful we continue treating everyone as individuals rather than using broad strokes.

[Archy1221]

It’s Almost like the Beltway media didn’t pick a side in 2016.  Running with a story that their private communications show they know to be untrue. 
 

 

[Archy1221]

 

[nic]

This is nuts. I don’t think anyone thought Hannity wasn’t in the tank for republicans, but he is asking Trump campaign folks what to say on air. Yes Sir. I suspect Walter Cronkite didn’t do that. You have to consider the source in all media these days.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-messages-meadows-trump-white-house/index.html

On the afternoon of Election Day, Hannity texted Meadows at 1:36 p.m. to ask about turnout in North Carolina. Two hours later, Meadows responded: "Stress every vote matters. Get out and vote. On radio." 

"Yes sir," Hannity replied. "On it. Any place in particular we need a push."

"Pennsylvania. NC AZ," Meadows wrote, adding: "Nevada." 

"Got it. Everywhere," Hannity said.