Utterly Meaningless

Will she be homeschooling in February too?

Nance

October is also National Pasta Month. I think the gay bashing is just a smokescreen. What she is really worried about is that her kids may be touched by His noodley appendage.

Presumably gays, lesbians (and pasta, lol!) exist both in and out of school, both in and out of their desginated months?

So where’s the beef? Oh that’s right . . .and I guess spring finals IS the perfect time for vegatarians to opt out of school . . .

OTOH, we’re all for various political protests by students walking out of school for immigration or Earth Day or whatever, right? — even when that means not being in school during testing (is there any other time?)

So maybe this is just 20 protest days strung together?

There is nothing to protest JJ. The school isn’t doing anything. They simply noted on the calendar that Oct was Gay & Lesbian History Month. That’s it. There is no asembly, no classes, no celebration. This particular school doesn’t even have a Gay Student Alliance.

what’s in February?

Black History Month.

Ah yes, as we all know people who don’t agree with homosexuality are all rasicts as well.

Not all. But I’d be willing to bet a fair chunk of change that the correlation is positive and statistically significant. Care to take me up on it?

It’s not “people that don’t agree with homosexuality” in this case. It’s people so bigoted that the mere mention of the word on paper sends them screaming to church. I’d bet most parents don’t agree with homosexuality, in the sense that they’d rather their kids not be gay. However, the line between don’t agree and raving mad bigot is not that fine, and this lady is way way on the wrong side.

Oh please, some positive correlation is a far cry from the implications made by Nance’s statement and you know it.

COD: This supposedly church going bigot you despise so much was quoted as asking “How can you celebrate gay and lesbian month? What are you going to teach my daughter?”. That’s a little different than seeing the word “gay” on paper and screaming. And before you go off on how they weren’t going to teach her daughter anything she had a problem with, my point is that she believed they were. We all know public schools have been given permission by the courts to teach sex related topics in school without permission from or notification to the parent. She obviously believed that would be the case here.

I’m not saying I agree with her action, but I’m always amazed at the generalizations I see in the comments on this blog. Why is it ok for people like Nance to repeatedly make passive aggressive comments against a negative steriotypical version of Christians and Republicans, but such an outrageous thing when the other side does it to you?

Let’s go to the tape, shall we.

Nance: Will she be homeschooling in February too?
Tim: Why is it ok for people like Nance to repeatedly make passive aggressive comments against a negative steriotypical version of Christians and Republicans…

So Nance makes a snarky (if likely accurate) supposition that she’s a racist and Tim automatically assumes she’s a Christian and Republican. Read any good Freud lately?

And I guess you’re conceding that a homophobe is more likely to be racist than the average person?

Seems to me the larger point is that political ideology is OFTEN put above what we think of as “academic instruction” by all POVs (see Diane Ravitch) and that this is done by all kinds of folks for all kinds of individually fraught reasons, some sillier or more permanent or threatening to society than others.

All cases of parent- community politics expressed through school share a sort of pattern though: (a) instilling them in the child at home, b) trying to instill them in the school curriculum too, (c) leaving school to underline one’s protest whenever the other side is perceived as having been too successful at (b) —

Here we may have a parent misperceiving as (b) what really is more lip service, school sound and seeming fury signifying nothing. Which I think is what Chris sees? — but then it usually only seems dangerous to the side not offended, and here he’s not. For example my guess is such a mom might be perfectly happy with, say, military recruiters in the schools, while political “others” like Chris (or let’s say Nance for sure!) would be willing to protest that by a lot more than pulling her own child out for a few weeks . . .

All of which just means that there’s no such thing as some “public” that is happy with “public schools” transmitting its values and ideology to future generations through general taxation.

Few of us believe inculcattion is good for free society nor what public schooling is “for”, yet we almost can’t stop ourselves from trying it anyway, just to be sure if there’s any slant at all, that it slants “our” way!

Unless of course we (and our HEKs) get off the whole merry-go-round and laugh at the people still pretending they’re getting anywhere, or that WE’RE the ones limiting ourselves to one small circle in perpetuity.

Let’s go to the FULL tape:
“I’m not saying I agree with her action, but I’m always amazed at the generalizations I see in the comments on this blog. Why is it ok for people like Nance to repeatedly make passive aggressive comments against a negative steriotypical version of Christians and Republicans, but such an outrageous thing when the other side does it to you?”

I wasn’t referring to the single comment at the top of this thread, obviously. I also pointed out that Nance and others consistently put up a negative stereotype of Christians and Republicans to attack, I didn’t say I thought the woman in the story was a Christian and/or Republican.

I know you’re not dumb, so let’s stop with the word games you’re using to avoid the question.

I’ll rephrase it: Why are you appalled when the other side of an argument behaves like bigots, but cheer when the side you’re on does it?

Oh, and I’m willing to concede that a racist is more likely to be a homophobe. Correlating the other way appears to have ulterior motives…

Oh, and I’m willing to concede that a racist is more likely to be a homophobe. Correlating the other way appears to have ulterior motives…

By the other way do you mean “a homophobe is more likely to be a racist”? Because, mathematically speaking, you just conceded that point, too.

Why are you appalled when the other side of an argument behaves like bigots, but cheer when the side you’re on does it?

Because my side is right? 🙂 And, as for the Republican bashing, have you checked the condition of the country lately? Two wars (and counting). Stagnant wages. A soaring deficit. And the legislature just voted to legalize torture and unconstitutionally suspend habeas corpus. Do I need to remind you which party has brought us all of these wonderful “gifts”?

And, finally, you can’t say I Christian-bash. In fact, other than the Pastafarian joke, you likely have no idea what my belief system is. Or even whether I have one. I don’t bash Christians. I just bash stupid people. Perhaps it’s just another correlation?

Commenters can bash whomever they wish, as long as the language is (relatively) clean.

“Because, mathematically speaking, you just conceded that point, too.”

Touche. Still doesn’t mean that anywhere near a majority of people against homosexuality are racist.

“Because my side is right?”

Ok, so you admit to the hypocrisy of expecting better behavior from your opponents that you do your allies.

That leads to another hypocrisy of complaining about the state of the country and acting like you want to fix it while using tactics such as stereotyping and “bashing”, that you know only polarize people.

Purposely antagonizing an opponent in an argument just demonstrates that you want to fight, not convince. If you want to know why the country has problems it’s because too many people are doing just that. So many people are “venting” that no one is talking anymore and people are behaving poorly simply out of spite.

I’ve been reading your blog for quite a while and have enjoyed it, but in the last six months I’m weeding through more and more hate filled retoric to find the point of the story/comment and thought I’d finally say something.

I know you don’t care what I think, but if you really believe the country is falling apart and, I assume, want to put it back together, you (and your readers) have to stop polarizing people. That isn’t solving anything.

And for the record, I’m not a Republican and I’m against the war.

I have a long and glorious record of bashing JJ around here 🙂 Nobody can accuse me of being one sided!

The fact that homophobe mom believed that the schools were going to make her kid gay does not any any way, shape, or form give her cover.

Still doesn’t mean that anywhere near a majority of people against homosexuality are racist.

No one ever said majority.

Ok, so you admit to the hypocrisy of expecting better behavior from your opponents that you do your allies.

Did you miss the smiley?

I’ve been reading your blog for quite a while and have enjoyed it, but in the last six months I’m weeding through more and more hate filled retoric to find the point of the story/comment and thought I’d finally say something.

Yeah, I’ve drifted left as I’ve seen the country go to Hell.

That leads to another hypocrisy of complaining about the state of the country and acting like you want to fix it while using tactics such as stereotyping and “bashing”, that you know only polarize people.

I’m working to fix it by helping to elect enough Democrats to take the House. I made my first political donation ever in 2004– a grand total of $20 to HSLDA lapdog Marilyn Musgrave’s opponent. This cycle I’m approaching $1000. A pittance, sure. But I do what I can. I’ve listened to 4 years of Republicans of all stripes bashing folks who are opposed to the war as treasonous. Or worse. Maines said it pretty well about not being ready to make nice or back down.

Purposely antagonizing an opponent in an argument just demonstrates that you want to fight, not convince.

The comments here have always been free-wheeling and snarky. I ask no quarter and give none. Blogs tend to be an echo chamber, so the rhetoric gets cranked up a bit. I don’t expect or hope to convince anyone here. I figure that the readers here mostly agree with me, or they wouldn’t stay readers. So, I feel no obligation to try to convince anyone of anything.

I know you don’t care what I think, but if you really believe the country is falling apart and, I assume, want to put it back together, you (and your readers) have to stop polarizing people. That isn’t solving anything.

Let them go first. I’m too sick of being called treasonous and wanting to coddle terrorists to care. The VRWC has ratcheted up their rhetoric for at least 10 years. I hope they have to wander in the political wilderness for 40.

Oh, forgot– Conservative Christianity has allowed itself to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP. You made your bed…

There go the generalizations again. Well, you win… or maybe you lose? I refuse to be part of the problem and you’re just trying to bait me into spouting hate, so I’m signing off.

On the off chance you check back–

I was not baiting you. I was being entirely honest in my self-assessment. There are four groups of people that I have routinely bashed: educrats, Republicans (lately), YECs, and child-beaters. Is it my fault that three of the four tend to be conservative Christians?

Perhaps CCs are the ones who need the self-assessment.

When he made his first comment, I was thinking that was out of character for Tim.

Different Tim 🙂

And the fourth group – educrats – are more CC than ever, too. My home state and TX were the bleeding edge of it, but see Rod Paige, Margaret Spellings etc — it’s now developed into the national high-contrast black-and-white picture staring back at us from one-answer front pages, textbooks, standardized tests, etc.
All of which is making it very hard for the traditionally liberal-leaning edu-cocracy like teacher union-PC speak folk to figure out WHERE to stand! 🙂

WHATEVER! They’re her kids and it’s her right to educate them as she pleases! Right?

All history is intertwined. Why do we have to set apart gay and lesbian and black history? If we do we should also have heterosexual history month and white, asian, Native American, Eskimo history months. Maybe I’m being intolerant. By not tolerating my intolerance you are also being intolerant, so we should have tolerance for intolerants awareness month. How about I’m not interested in your sexuality month? Mind your own business month? It doesn’t matter what color your skin is month? We’re running out of months – let’s just combine them all into one big who gives a rat’s ass month.