Media Bias

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

Here's a podcast episode where she acknowledges what you just said isn't true

You said they dox people, I said that’s not true.  Look up what doxing is not re-sharing on its raw form what said person has ALREADY publicly shared.   It’s reposting THEIR OWN  video.  

[Archy1221]

26 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

You're upset about the "double standard" but not upset about those educators/what they said? 

Except there actually is no double standard.  They are reposting a persons already public post that was posted by the user.   These people doxxed themselves.   

[DevoHusker]

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Except there actually is no double standard.  They are reposting a persons already public post that was posted by the user.   These people doxxed themselves.   

Yes.

And, those public posts are worrying to me as a grandparent with elementary schoolers.

[teachercd]

Shocked that those teachers got in trouble, SHOCKED!  Ha

 

 

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

You're upset about the "double standard" but not upset about those educators/what they said? 

 

Not sure. Depends on which ones you're talking about. I'm glad to offer my thoughts on any individual example.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

They literally re-posted the exact message that idiot already posted!  Do you really not understand how that works??  I think you actually do. 

 

You know that he had his profile public and/or had his real name attached to it at the time? I don't.

 

Let's say his name was public. Then I'll go back to my original point that there is no story here, and Taylor Lorentz is at worst doing exactly the same thing as libsoftiktok is, as her name was also publicly available.

[DevoHusker]

4 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Not sure. Depends on which ones you're talking about. I'm glad to offer my thoughts on any individual example.

 

Well, I responded to your post, so probably the three separate cases you linked .

[Lorewarn]

9 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Well, I responded to your post, so probably the three separate cases you linked .

 

 

The first guy I'll say two things. One, I don't think there's any reason to bring up the topic unprompted for that age group. Second, with that being said, nothing he said was wrong or controversial outside of not needing to say it in the first place.

 

The second one is 100% innocuous. It has zero to do with sexuality or gender and is a harmless encouragement, presumably towards his tiktok followers, not his students. Not sure what other content of his is out there that led to him getting fired.

 

The third one the guy explicitly makes clear that he isn't at all endorsing pedophelia, he just holds an opinion of respecting the terminology that groups of people prefer. Instinctually it makes me a bit uneasy but I always lean on the side of being able to have conversations and understand other folks, especially the ones that we just deem monsters (primarily so we don't have to actually deal with what makes them that way).

 

 

[DevoHusker]

9 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

The first guy I'll say two things. One, I don't think there's any reason to bring up the topic unprompted for that age group. Second, with that being said, nothing he said was wrong or controversial outside of not needing to say it in the first place.

 

The second one is 100% innocuous. It has zero to do with sexuality or gender and is a harmless encouragement, presumably towards his tiktok followers, not his students. Not sure what other content of his is out there that led to him getting fired.

 

The third one the guy explicitly makes clear that he isn't at all endorsing pedophelia, he just holds an opinion of respecting the terminology that groups of people prefer. Instinctually it makes me a bit uneasy but I always lean on the side of being able to have conversations and understand other folks, especially the ones that we just deem monsters (primarily so we don't have to actually deal with what makes them that way).

 

 

I disagree with your stance, on each of them, but thanks for sharing your pov

[Lorewarn]

7 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I disagree with your stance, on each of them, but thanks for sharing your pov

 

 

Curious to hear more; what do you find alarming about each? 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

ou know that he had his profile public and/or had his real name attached to it at the time? I don't.

 

Let's say his name was public. Then I'll go back to my original point that there is no story here, and Taylor Lorentz is at worst doing exactly the same thing as libsoftiktok is, as her name was also publicly available.

Yes, we do know that.   It’s how LOTT works.   
 

And no, it’s not the same, but either way the Lorenz idiot is complaining about the same thing she herself is doing.   LOTT is not exposing anonymous accounts, only people who have publicly shown their face and/or names.   

[JJ Husker]

27 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Curious to hear more; what do you find alarming about each? 

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.

[teachercd]

16 minutes 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.

Dude, everyone agrees with you, even the dude you replied to in your post.  This is just a classic case of digging a hole and forgetting to stop.

 

We have all done it once or twice (or 99 billion times)

[Archy1221]

14 minutes 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.

Well said

[nic]

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

You're upset about the "double standard" but not upset about those educators/what they said? 

That professor talking about about minor attracted persons is sick. I wouldn’t want my kids anywhere near them.

[DevoHusker]

54 minutes 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.

Same view here