Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

What an arrogant sentiment. It's also telling that it's leveled exclusively at the Christian right.

What books should be present in a children's library in Syria? Or Israel? Or China? Or India?

In any sufficiently different culture - it's fine and dandy for their books to reflect the cultural values of the society - but somehow the preservation of the culture which formed our country is being painted as bigoted generational ignorance.

The books in question are RARELY in question because parents want them banned. They just don't want limited resources to promote that material... to their kids... and/or at an insufficient age.

But go ahead and conflate an argument about limiting youth exposure to age-inappropriate or parental-unapproved sexual material with a desire to deprive them of critical thinking skills or culturally valuable foundations.

Quote:

---

What an arrogant sentiment. It's also telling that it's leveled exclusively at the Christian right.

---

I'd love you to find this statement in anything I posted.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

What an arrogant sentiment. It's also telling that it's leveled exclusively at the Christian right.

---

I'd love you to find this statement in anything I posted.

---

Quote:

---

"Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?"

---

You contrasted as a binary. Effectively saying that there's the enlightened view (those who agree with you) or the ignorant view (those who would choose to draw lines between appropriate and inappropriate at a different point than yourself).

I drew obvious inferences from your overly-reductive dichotomy.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

So you can't point to anything I've said. You've just straw manned your way to a conclusion. I don't care who is doing the indoctrinating.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

---

There's a lot of logical leaps made in this statement. Librarians aren't positing themselves as a "moral authority." They aren't telling kids what they must read. They're providing kids with the opportunity to read material they are interested in or might find value in reading. Additionally, children are not the mindless property of parents to be lobotomized on demand. They're independent minds in their own right. The response I see in favor of censorship seems to think that children are property, and stupid, ignorant property at that.

Sapper Redux said:

---

So you can't point to anything I've said. You've just straw manned your way to a conclusion. I don't care who is doing the indoctrinating.

---

Well, the snarky retort to what I wrote is a pretty obvious give away what angle you were approaching from.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

---

There's a lot of logical leaps made in this statement. Librarians aren't positing themselves as a "moral authority." They aren't telling kids what they must read. They're providing kids with the opportunity to read material they are interested in or might find value in reading. Additionally, children are not the mindless property of parents to be lobotomized on demand. They're independent minds in their own right. The response I see in favor of censorship seems to think that children are property, and stupid, ignorant property at that.

---

Haven't walked into a kids section in a library in a hot minute, I take it.

Librarians make purchasing, display, and promotion descisions. Its disingenuous to claim that their neutral arbiters of literature and literacy when they're also buying rainbow decorations and putting LGBwhatever books that they've chosen to buy in positions of prominence / highest-traffic.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

---

There's a lot of logical leaps made in this statement. Librarians aren't positing themselves as a "moral authority." They aren't telling kids what they must read. They're providing kids with the opportunity to read material they are interested in or might find value in reading. Additionally, children are not the mindless property of parents to be lobotomized on demand. They're independent minds in their own right. The response I see in favor of censorship seems to think that children are property, and stupid, ignorant property at that.

---

Children are ignorant by definition. How could you argue otherwise? You seem to think that you don't value children as property. You do, you just differ as to who owns them by expanding the circle of people beyond their parents to complete strangers.

Your post is also completely devoid of any attempt to engage a child's mental capacity. They don't understand the long term implications of queer theory so we should rightly protect them from it.

I didn't say children were adults. But they also have their own minds that they need to develop. They aren't property. They're people. They need guidance, but guidance is different from control over their minds. If you want them to grow they have to challenged instead of spoon fed exactly what you want them to believe. And there's nothing wrong with queer people or queer theory.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

---

There's a lot of logical leaps made in this statement. Librarians aren't positing themselves as a "moral authority." They aren't telling kids what they must read. They're providing kids with the opportunity to read material they are interested in or might find value in reading. Additionally, children are not the mindless property of parents to be lobotomized on demand. They're independent minds in their own right. The response I see in favor of censorship seems to think that children are property, and stupid, ignorant property at that.

---

Haven't walked into a kids section in a library in a hot minute, I take it.

Librarians make purchasing, display, and promotion descisions. Its disingenuous to claim that their neutral arbiters of literature and literacy when they're also buying rainbow decorations and putting LGBwhatever books that they've chosen to buy in positions of prominence / highest-traffic.

---

Oh no! You mean during Pride Month a library may have a Pride display? I'm shocked. Does "neutral" in your mind mean they only display what you agree with?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

---

There's a lot of logical leaps made in this statement. Librarians aren't positing themselves as a "moral authority." They aren't telling kids what they must read. They're providing kids with the opportunity to read material they are interested in or might find value in reading. Additionally, children are not the mindless property of parents to be lobotomized on demand. They're independent minds in their own right. The response I see in favor of censorship seems to think that children are property, and stupid, ignorant property at that.

---

Haven't walked into a kids section in a library in a hot minute, I take it.

Librarians make purchasing, display, and promotion descisions. Its disingenuous to claim that their neutral arbiters of literature and literacy when they're also buying rainbow decorations and putting LGBwhatever books that they've chosen to buy in positions of prominence / highest-traffic.

---

Oh no! You mean during Pride Month a library may have a Pride display? I'm shocked. Does "neutral" in your mind mean they only display what you agree with?

---

Ah - now I see. You're approaching this as a Democrat (Kamala: "it was a DEBATE!" *Cackle cackle*) approaches 'Debate' (scoring points and avoiding being pinned down in the moment, even when it requires pivoting from previous points) and NOT as a Socratic exercise (a good-will pursuit of underlying truth).

The reality is that you're cool with what's going on because you share the values of those actively working to subvert parents replicating their culture within their own children.

Sapper Redux said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You have a real point, but lets also not pretend that all education is altruistic. Education has been a primary ideological weapon going back to the invention of the printing press. Every ideology from the Nazi's with Hitler Youth to the Soviets with the Young Pioneers tries to indoctrinate the children as they are more impressionable than adults.

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictacting what that school teaches

---

So if a community decides that the Holocaust was a good thing, you'd be okay with them teaching that to every child in the school system? What guardrails are you okay with? Why should the loudest parents get veto power over what kids choose to read?

---

The question always falls back to the same point. Who is this impartial, enlightened, benevolent group that we should allow to trump the wishes of the parents and local community? Who gets to decide what is untouchable literature? I don't trust independent group, state or federal agency or political party to do it.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictating what that school teaches.

---

I think that I'll agree that conservatives actually feel this way when they begin to rebuke the conservative state governments passing bills to limit material that local communities are allowed to carry in their libraries.

If children's access to information should be controlled at the most granular level, then let it be at the level of individual parents. Could a compromise to the public library issue be to not ban ANY books, but allow parents control over what their children have access to? I would like for my children to have access to To Kill A Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies and books with LGBTQ characters. That is fine if others don't . . . .but why should that affect my child's access to those books? To say they still have access to those books through their parents or outside of the library is to partially defeat the purpose of a library in the first place.

---

Local control is my personal opinion. Neither political wing feels that way. They think they are fighting a culture war, and it's hard to argue. It might not have been a dramatic shift in the North. But in the South the last 60 years or so has been a series of society altering changes, one after another, all passed down from the federal government often at gunpoint. Just think about how the 1950s looked in the South and think of everything that happened to get to us here since. We've had the Civil Right movement abolishing segregation, Jim Crow and interracial marriage. Womens' liberation with birth control, abortion, and the majority of women now working outside the home. We have lost laws against adultery, gay acts, and gay marriage is now legal. We've lost prayer in schools, Christian symbols in courthouses and even Christmas displays in public buildings. Old Earth and evolution is required in schools.

Now I'm not saying these things are bad. On the whole, they are good changes. But if you live in the South, all of these changes were enforced by federal law over the opposition of your local populace. At the time each of these changes was enforced throughout the US, various communities in the South were overwhelmingly against them. And it didn't matter.

And the people pushing for these changes feel like these changes have to be forced on people that don't want them. And they still feel that way with the new controversies of the day. So the battle lines are drawn. If you are against *any* of the progressive changes I mentioned above, then you are conservative. If you embrace them all, and usually the next 5 things on the agenda, then you are liberal. That's our culture war right now, and both sides want to control and enforce their own views about it. Both want to control the media narrative. Both want to influence/expose/indoctrinate children. It's a culture war. Get your message out. Block the other peoples' message. Influence the next generation.

I think both sides suck. It's conflict, and in war there are no good guys. Only bad guys and worse guys. Bigots clearly suck, but I don't see any Klan members at children's hour in the San Francisco library. As opposed to drag shows in the rural South. It's reprehensible to me for culture warriors to target the children of the other side and then to get upset when the parents object

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You have a real point, but lets also not pretend that all education is altruistic. Education has been a primary ideological weapon going back to the invention of the printing press. Every ideology from the Nazi's with Hitler Youth to the Soviets with the Young Pioneers tries to indoctrinate the children as they are more impressionable than adults.

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictacting what that school teaches

---

So if a community decides that the Holocaust was a good thing, you'd be okay with them teaching that to every child in the school system? What guardrails are you okay with? Why should the loudest parents get veto power over what kids choose to read?

---

The question always falls back to the same point. Who is this impartial, enlightened, benevolent group that we should allow to trump the wishes of the parents and local community? Who gets to decide what is untouchable literature? I don't trust independent group, state or federal agency or political party to do it.

---

So if the majority of parents decide the Holocaust is a good thing and children should be taught Jews are evil, is that okay? If not, who gets to make that decision?

I don't have an answer I'm happy with, and clearly you don't either. So let's just say that no matter who is teaching our children, some of what they teach will be wrong and even reprehensible. So if anyone has the right to raise children the wrong way, it should be their parents. Not the school, the church, the government, some think tank, or some world body unless the parents go looking for that guidance

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

---

There's a lot of logical leaps made in this statement. Librarians aren't positing themselves as a "moral authority." They aren't telling kids what they must read. They're providing kids with the opportunity to read material they are interested in or might find value in reading. Additionally, children are not the mindless property of parents to be lobotomized on demand. They're independent minds in their own right. The response I see in favor of censorship seems to think that children are property, and stupid, ignorant property at that.

---

Haven't walked into a kids section in a library in a hot minute, I take it.

Librarians make purchasing, display, and promotion descisions. Its disingenuous to claim that their neutral arbiters of literature and literacy when they're also buying rainbow decorations and putting LGBwhatever books that they've chosen to buy in positions of prominence / highest-traffic.

---

Oh no! You mean during Pride Month a library may have a Pride display? I'm shocked. Does "neutral" in your mind mean they only display what you agree with?

---

Ah - now I see. You're approaching this as a Democrat (Kamala: "it was a DEBATE!" *Cackle cackle*) approaches 'Debate' (scoring points and avoiding being pinned down in the moment, even when it requires pivoting from previous points) and NOT as a Socratic exercise (a good-will pursuit of underlying truth).

The reality is that you're cool with what's going on because you share the values of those actively working to subvert parents replicating their culture within their own children.

---

Which underlying truth are you attempting to elucidate? Instead of playing games, what are trying to claim and why?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I don't have an answer I'm happy with, and clearly you don't either. So let's just say that no matter who is teaching our children, some of what they teach will be wrong and even reprehensible. So if anyone has the right to raise children the wrong way, it should be their parents. Not the school, the church, the government, some think tank, or some world body unless the parents go looking for that guidance

---

Parents are not required to put their children in public schools. Given that our government is built on the principles (supposedly) of equal rights for all, it makes sense for a school funded and managed by government entities to promote the rights of all equally. That may mean kids are exposed to things their parents don't like. Tough. We live in a pluralistic society based on legal rights. Parents are still free to teach their children whatever they want, but they don't get a heckler's veto over curriculum they don't like. There has to be a better reason for treating LGBT material and people as a threat than the fact that some parents don't like LGBT people.

Sapper Redux said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You have a real point, but lets also not pretend that all education is altruistic. Education has been a primary ideological weapon going back to the invention of the printing press. Every ideology from the Nazi's with Hitler Youth to the Soviets with the Young Pioneers tries to indoctrinate the children as they are more impressionable than adults.

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictacting what that school teaches

---

So if a community decides that the Holocaust was a good thing, you'd be okay with them teaching that to every child in the school system? What guardrails are you okay with? Why should the loudest parents get veto power over what kids choose to read?

---

The question always falls back to the same point. Who is this impartial, enlightened, benevolent group that we should allow to trump the wishes of the parents and local community? Who gets to decide what is untouchable literature? I don't trust independent group, state or federal agency or political party to do it.

---

So if the majority of parents decide the Holocaust is a good thing and children should be taught Jews are evil, is that okay? If not, who gets to make that decision?

---

It's SUPPOSED to work by working on the parents. In broad daylight. Public discourse and debate. HONEST discourse (as opposed to your version which ibores valid counter-points).

A large part of where Librarians and Teachers have lost their public trust and confidence is that they see themselves as you do: the enlightened and superior who will shape children to their will. Female leftists have an extraordinarily strong feedback loop in their education degree paths. The product is (far too often) indoctrinated folks who are now indoctrinators.

The fact that the left is targeting children in this culture war speaks volumes. Our culture has shifted heavily toward a liberalized society, and now, after taking so much ground, the left is INCREASING their tactics and cultural assault?!?

You've won every battle that was worth fighting! We should be enjoying shared victories of systemic demographic equality!

The answer is obviously that the left isn't content with the position of the pendulum and wants to keep it moving. Progressives they call themselves... but they never verbalize what they're progressing toward. What's the end-state, and why are you types now trying to subvert a thoroughly liberalized culture?!

If you can't have these discussions openly adult-to-adult, then good parents will assess you to be nefarious and take steps to insulate their children from your side.

You didn't answer my question.

Sapper Redux said:

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Well, you've ignored a number of mine, so consider it fair play.

And those critical thinking skills you were adamant about a page earlier? You COULD apply them here and realize that I actually did when I told you to work on the parents. Sure - it's harder to convince Palestinian adults than to just subvert them by inserting teachers and material who teach their children about the Jewish Holocaust. But that's the correct way to do it. None of us should expect them to fund their own cultural subversion via estrangement from their own children!

Sapper Redux said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

---

This is the crux of the problem: librarians think they're a moral authority and that children and others are entrusted to their care to be guided, more so than by their parents. It is unsurprising that an educator thinks they have sole dominion over what's appropriate instead the actual parents of the children. In a high trust homogenous society this works and that's what you want to peddle; COVID changed that now that we can see what educators and librarians actually teach and encourage.

---

There's a lot of logical leaps made in this statement. Librarians aren't positing themselves as a "moral authority." They aren't telling kids what they must read. They're providing kids with the opportunity to read material they are interested in or might find value in reading. Additionally, children are not the mindless property of parents to be lobotomized on demand. They're independent minds in their own right. The response I see in favor of censorship seems to think that children are property, and stupid, ignorant property at that.

---

Haven't walked into a kids section in a library in a hot minute, I take it.

Librarians make purchasing, display, and promotion descisions. Its disingenuous to claim that their neutral arbiters of literature and literacy when they're also buying rainbow decorations and putting LGBwhatever books that they've chosen to buy in positions of prominence / highest-traffic.

---

Oh no! You mean during Pride Month a library may have a Pride display? I'm shocked. Does "neutral" in your mind mean they only display what you agree with?

---

Ah - now I see. You're approaching this as a Democrat (Kamala: "it was a DEBATE!" *Cackle cackle*) approaches 'Debate' (scoring points and avoiding being pinned down in the moment, even when it requires pivoting from previous points) and NOT as a Socratic exercise (a good-will pursuit of underlying truth).

The reality is that you're cool with what's going on because you share the values of those actively working to subvert parents replicating their culture within their own children.

---

Which underlying truth are you attempting to elucidate? Instead of playing games, what are trying to claim and why?

---

My claim? You do not stand on principles. Your position in this discussion is rooted in a belief of moral superiority / enlightenment, and you believe that gives you (and your ilk) the right to impose your current values on others' children (leveraging taxes extracted under threat of violence in the process).

The issue - as already pointed out by others and ignored by you - is that the lack of principle means it all devolves into a power issue. Your position falls apart as soon as the necessary benevolent and enlightened government official (who decides which values and lessons to impart on the next generation rather than their own parents) is revealed to be human.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itsel."

Appropriate principle: let parents and local taxpayers make decisions about how their $ is spent to educate their children. Right or wrong. And of wrong: engage with the adults until the community comes around. Then the education of their children will update accordingly.

Sorry for the inappropriate emoji

Sapper Redux said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I don't have an answer I'm happy with, and clearly you don't either. So let's just say that no matter who is teaching our children, some of what they teach will be wrong and even reprehensible. So if anyone has the right to raise children the wrong way, it should be their parents. Not the school, the church, the government, some think tank, or some world body unless the parents go looking for that guidance

---

Parents are not required to put their children in public schools. Given that our government is built on the principles (supposedly) of equal rights for all, it makes sense for a school funded and managed by government entities to promote the rights of all equally. That may mean kids are exposed to things their parents don't like. Tough. We live in a pluralistic society based on legal rights. Parents are still free to teach their children whatever they want, but they don't get a heckler's veto over curriculum they don't like. There has to be a better reason for treating LGBT material and people as a threat than the fact that some parents don't like LGBT people.

---

Well your first point isn't exactly correct. I am required to have my children in school. If they don't go, I'll eventually get police officers showing up to my door. Now there are legal alternatives. I can homeschool if I have tons of extra time, or I can put my kid in private school if I have tons of extra money. The vast majority of people have jobs and don't have time to homeschool, and the vast majority cannot afford private education. Meanwhile, these parents are being taxed to pay for the local school system, which makes it even more financially difficult to choose another option. That's why the right is so loud about school vouchers and school choice.

So yes, I would be very upset if I'm being taxed to fund a school and being all but required to send my kids there on penalty of law, and then someone insists on "exposing my child to the world" in ways I don't approve.

So the backlash shouldn't surprise anyone

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Well, you've ignored a number of mine, so consider it fair play.

And those critical thinking skills you were adamant about a page earlier? You COULD apply them here and realize that I actually did when I told you to work on the parents. Sure - it's harder to convince Palestinian adults than to just subvert them by inserting teachers and material who teach their children about the Jewish Holocaust. But that's the correct way to do it. None of us should expect them to fund their own cultural subversion via estrangement from their own children!

---

So if a majority of parents believe Jewish people are evil and that should be taught in school, it's up to those under threat by the belief and anyone who may disagree to get that changed? In other words, you believe schools should operate on mob rule?

So school segregation should be legal if enough parents believe in it? Can you perhaps see the problems with your argument?

Is the goal of a school to educate children or make parents happy?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

You didn't answer my question.

---

Well, you've ignored a number of mine, so consider it fair play.

And those critical thinking skills you were adamant about a page earlier? You COULD apply them here and realize that I actually did when I told you to work on the parents. Sure - it's harder to convince Palestinian adults than to just subvert them by inserting teachers and material who teach their children about the Jewish Holocaust. But that's the correct way to do it. None of us should expect them to fund their own cultural subversion via estrangement from their own children!

---

So if a majority of parents believe Jewish people are evil and that should be taught in school, it's up to those under threat by the belief and anyone who may disagree to get that changed? In other words, you believe schools should operate on mob rule?

---

...are you so myopic that you focus exclusively on the western world? The majority of school children in existence learn lessons we would both disagree with. Including tens of millions of antisemites and worse. But the principle remains: because men are not angels, the primary responsibility and authority for a child's rearing resides with the parent.

If we want to help emancipate a society from their backward beliefs and teachings - we should work on their adults. Who gave you the right and authority to reach down and impart YOUR values on anothers' child? That's what I described as arrogance earlier on.

You have no principle. Only perceived virtue as bestowed by your cultural corner. Your position is far more corruptible and dangerous than one which elevates each individual.

Out of curiosity, and because it is relevant context: how many children do you have?

I'm focused on the United States because we happen to live in the United States. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't particularly care what public education looks like in most of the rest of the world. Based on your arguments, you seem to be saying it is the responsibility of the people harmed by the majority opinion to achieve some measure of decent treatment and some measure of meaningful education about them. You seem incapable of understanding the problems with this position and the real danger to the lives and rights of those who are not part of the majority.

I recognize not every administrator or curriculum developer is a good person. That's why these things are discussed and debated before being approved. That's why people with specialized education and knowledge on these topics are responsible for designing and debating educational standards. Even then there can be problems. I'm not opposed to parents being very vocal about how their children are educated. I am opposed to a heckler's veto that weakens education in the name of parental beliefs and mob rule above developing critical thinking and knowledge in our future adult citizens.

For the record, I have 2 elementary aged children who attend public schools.

Sapper Redux said:

---

I'm focused on the United States because we happen to live in the United States. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't particularly care what public education looks like in most of the rest of the world. Based on your arguments, you seem to be saying it is the responsibility of the people harmed by the majority opinion to achieve some measure of decent treatment and some measure of meaningful education about them. You seem incapable of understanding the problems with this position and the real danger to the lives and rights of those who are not part of the majority.

I recognize not every administrator or curriculum developer is a good person. That's why these things are discussed and debated before being approved. That's why people with specialized education and knowledge on these topics are responsible for designing and debating educational standards. Even then there can be problems. I'm not opposed to parents being very vocal about how their children are educated. I am opposed to a heckler's veto that weakens education in the name of parental beliefs and mob rule above developing critical thinking and knowledge in our future adult citizens.

For the record, I have 2 elementary aged children who attend public schools.

---

That sounds fine and dandy, but your side has been getting away with purposefully inserting culturally contentious material into elementary education with an intention to shift culture.

That's a far cry from the charter and purpose of public education (traditionally considered the 3R's: Reading Writing and Arithmetic) which were supposed to equip children with tools and commonalities which would be foundational to future successes.

You want to keep your cake and eat it too: doing things which SHOULD elicit pushback and then complaining about "mob rule" and "hecklers veto"s when a completely justified pushback arises by those who want public education to stay within its intended scope.

Mental exercise: if the cultural insurgency wasn't being run by the LGBT-promoting left, but rather educators with a desire to cultivate a shift toward Sharia rule (as happens in madrasas) - would you be singing the same "trust the experts" tune? Or is just an argument you're using because it currently facilitates your desired outcome?

That is why I am certain you stand on politics rather than principle. You squirm out of honest discourse because your aim isn't a resilient system that serves parental & societal interests by equipping children with skills, but rather a political outcome.

Is it any wonder many of us have woken up to the culture war that you and your side are waging?

Sapper Redux said:

---

I didn't say children were adults. But they also have their own minds that they need to develop. They aren't property. They're people. They need guidance, but guidance is different from control over their minds. If you want them to grow they have to challenged instead of spoon fed exactly what you want them to believe. And there's nothing wrong with queer people or queer theory.

---

It's amazing how much you conceive of yourself as the hero in this situation, offering a 'challenge' and 'guidance' to 'grow' children. Children need a foundation on which to build before they can withstand a challenge. Further look at what you're offering - and unspecified goal simply called growth, a challenge to their beliefs that leads them to…what exactly? You have no concept of 'good' to which you can point them in your answers. It's a vapid argument.

Queer theory destroys foundations, it doesn't build theM. Much like critical theory destroys trust and societies in search of power. You worldview is a hammer in desperate search of a nail.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Is the goal of a school to educate children or make parents happy?

---

So many loaded assumptions. What makes an education good or worth teaching? Why assume that children are getting one? What makes parents incapable of assessing the education or knowing what's best for their kids?

The irony here is you represent power, you are the dominant worldview that controls the education system. Please check your privilege

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Is the goal of a school to educate children or make parents happy?

---

So many loaded assumptions. What makes an education good or worth teaching? Why assume that children are getting one? What makes parents incapable of assessing the education or knowing what's best for their kids?

The irony here is you represent power, you are the dominant worldview that controls the education system. Please check your privilege

---

I've yet to see you actually answer a question. You make massive assumptions about me and about educators in general while not actually addressing the questions that challenge your arguments. I've already said there are existing processes involving trained experts along with public and parental input. You've yet to address the goal of schooling. Is it an education or to make parents happy according to the whims of the bare majority?

Quote:

---

Mental exercise: if the cultural insurgency wasn't being run by the LGBT-promoting left, but rather educators with a desire to cultivate a shift toward Sharia rule (as happens in madrasas) - would you be singing the same "trust the experts" tune? Or is just an argument you're using because it currently facilitates your desired outcome?

---

Once upon a time, we had an amendment that guaranteed specific religious beliefs would not be promoted by the United States government. We also had an amendment that guaranteed individual rights and protection at every level of government. So your "thought experiment" doesn't mean much in this country. At least, not at the moment. Granted, Alito and Thomas would probably be fine with a publicly funded Christian madrasa, so who knows where we'll be in 10 years.

Educating children that LGBT people exist and are human beings with their own beliefs, thoughts, and dreams, is not terrorism.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Mental exercise: if the cultural insurgency wasn't being run by the LGBT-promoting left, but rather educators with a desire to cultivate a shift toward Sharia rule (as happens in madrasas) - would you be singing the same "trust the experts" tune? Or is just an argument you're using because it currently facilitates your desired outcome?

---

Once upon a time, we had an amendment that guaranteed specific religious beliefs would not be promoted by the United States government. We also had an amendment that guaranteed individual rights and protection at every level of government. So your "thought experiment" doesn't mean much in this country. At least, not at the moment. Granted, Alito and Thomas would probably be fine with a publicly funded Christian madrasa, so who knows where we'll be in 10 years.

Educating children that LGBT people exist and are human beings with their own beliefs, thoughts, and dreams, is not terrorism.

---

Again with the debate-weasel tactics. Good grief. Now I'm remembering why the original Sapper got perma'd.

The point is: we agree that "expert" isn't an exclusive credential necessary to run an desirable school. You were just using it as a convenient appeal from authority for the time being.

Which brings us back to the primary issue: I'm a proponent of a resilient and updatable structure which best serves the community and parents by remaining as apolitical as possible. Teach the basics, push kids to equip them with communally valued skills, but leave culturally contentious topics outside. Under my ideal; people simply respect each other as individuals and try not to bother each other regarding irreconcilable differences.

Alternatively - we could follow your political pathway, toss all of that out the window, follow the political winds of the day, let each generation indoctrinate kids with a different culture than their parents had, create cultural fragmentation, and not allow parents to apply brakes which could safeguard against the system spiralling out of control. But when would unintended consequences ever happen? Oh yeah - the current Supreme Court: courtesy of Harry Reid.

What are "culturally contentious topics"? Couple things:

Is a history class that discusses slavery, lynching, and racism too culturally contentious? Is the Holocaust? How about more modern wars where the US may not be the good guys? How passive do you want schools to be?

Ignoring people who are frequently treated badly is not being "polite," it is not "unbiased." It is biased against them and what they face. It means their lived experience is not worth understanding and means they are outside the community.

By the way, drop the ******* routine. You don't like me. Got it. Focus.