"Everyone welcome" is now unacceptable.

[NolanVoyd]

So she meant “Everyone is welcome in America”? Why not say that instead of “here”?

in public school.

That is national education policy and federal law.

unless that wasn’t the political message she was trying to convey.



Assuming “here” was her classroom, that was a political statement

saying everyone is welcome in public school, in class, is not a political statement. It is a statement of national education policy and federal law.

that didn’t belong on a wall there.

of course it belongs

any one who opposes that statement has no business in education.

She was given an opportunity to remove or alter it. She didn’t.

she did the right thing.

That was her choice. She’s going to discover that when it comes to indoctrinating kids in a public classroom,

that isnt indoctrination its national education policy and federal law.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I'm only interested in the statement as you made it, and as you admitted was false.

The statement as I made it was in the context of this conversation.

You seem unable to understand that even though I've been explaining it to you for days

 

[Ahlevah]

I love how "trumpian bigots" infer so much from a simple everyone welcome sign. No wonder people different than themselves such as the LGBTQ community makes them apoplectic.

Because it wasn’t a simple “everyone welcome” sign. It was an “everyone is welcome here” sign based on race, which implies “in my classroom and not somewhere else in Jim Crow Land.” I’m surprised she didn’t have a rainbow hand, since she had her own “Welcoming Project” thing going on.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Because it wasn’t a simple “everyone welcome” sign. It’s an “everyone is welcome here” sign , which implies “in my classroom and not somewhere else in Jim Crow Land.” I’m surprised she didn’t have a rainbow hand, since she had her own “Welcoming Project” thing going on.

No, it is a simple everyone is welcome sign to make students feel more comfortable. You can infer anything you want. It doesn't make it so.

 

[RF667799]

No, it is a simple everyone is welcome sign to make students feel more comfortable. You can infer anything you want. It doesn't make it so.

I agree. Reading more into it requires assumptions.

It doesn't say "Everyone is welcome here, but not in other classrooms".

It doesn't say "Everyone is welcome here, except those who disagree with this sign".

 

[RF667799]

The statement as I made it was in the context of this conversation.

You seem unable to understand that even though I've been explaining it to you for days

The statement was- and is- false as you made it and as you earlier agreed.

 

[Ahlevah]

in public school.

That is national education policy and federal law.

She said the sign was about inclusivity, not politics. But that’s disingenuous, because “inclusivity” as modern progressives see it is decidedly political. They don’t believe in a unified, colorblind society. They see societal spoils divided through the prisms of race and political power.

saying everyone is welcome in public school, in class, is not a political statement. It is a statement of national education policy and federal law.

She also said removing the sign aligned her with “exclusionary” (i.e. Jim Crow-style) rules, implying the district was bigoted for asking her to follow its “content-neutral” policies. Her sign was certainly not neutral. And if it wasn’t political, then how is the district’s response asking her to remove it bigoted?

of course it belongs

Obviously, the district didn’t think so, at least not under its current policy.

any one who opposes that statement has no business in education.

People who teach that America is a hateful country where people of color need safe spaces as a respite from bigoted white people don’t need to be near our kids.

she did the right thing.

I wish all teachers who see America only in terms of race would resign. Maybe Ms. Inama should get a job at Patrice Lumumba People’s’ Friendship University in Russia. It would probably be a good fit for her.

that isnt indoctrination its national education policy and federal law.

She wasn’t there to teach her 6th-grade world civ students about Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It’s not content-neutral, and I doubt in any case that that was her intent.

 

[Ahlevah]

No, it is a simple everyone is welcome sign to make students feel more comfortable. You can infer anything you want. It doesn't make it so.

So the logical question is why would she assume that that would be necessary? That they wouldn’t feel welcome or comfortable in her classroom? When I went to grade school in the 1960s at the pinnacle of the struggle for civil rights, the subject of race never came up even though I was in a fully-integrated school, with white, black, Hispanic, and Asian-American kids. Our teachers didn’t make our outward appearance a big deal, so neither did we. We all felt welcome without having to be told that.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The statement was- and is- false as you made it and as you earlier agreed.

No, it's not.

 

[Ahlevah]

I agree. Reading more into it requires assumptions.

It doesn't say "Everyone is welcome here, but not in other classrooms".

It doesn't say "Everyone is welcome here, except those who disagree with this sign".

If the statement is “Everyone is welcome here,” with little raised white, black, and brown hands with hearts on them, then you don’t need to be genius to make the obvious inference that they’re not welcome somewhere outside of that space on the basis of race. That is not a “content-neutral” stance.

 

[NolanVoyd]

She said the sign was about inclusivity, not politics. But that’s disingenuous, because “inclusivity” as modern progressives see it is decidedly political.

what a bunch of weird nonsense.

They don’t believe in a unified, colorblind society. They see societal spoils divided through the prisms of race and political power.

More weird nonsense.

She also said removing the sign aligned her with “exclusionary” (i.e. Jim Crow-style) rules, implying the district was bigoted for asking her to follow its “content-neutral” policies.

The ddistrictis in fact bigoted for saying that "everyone is welcome here" is not content nuetral.

Her sign was certainly not neutral.

Of course it was.

And if it wasn’t political, then how is the district’s response asking her to remove it bigoted?

Its bigoted because it implies that everyone is not welcome.

Obviously, the district didn’t think so, at least not under its current policy.

Right the district is wrong.

The sign expresses national education policy and federal law.

People who teach that America is a hateful country where people of color need safe spaces as a respite from bigoted white people don’t need to be near our kids.

People that see a sign saying "Everyone is welcome here" as problematic dont need to be near our kids.

 

[Hari Seldon]

So the logical question is why would she assume that that would be necessary? That they wouldn’t feel welcome or comfortable in her classroom? When I went to grade school in the 1960s at the pinnacle of the struggle for civil rights, the subject of race never came up even though I was in a fully-integrated school, with white, black, Hispanic, and Asian-American kids. Our teachers didn’t make our outward appearance a big deal, so neither did we. We all felt welcome without having to be told that.

Just because you had a positive experience doesn't mean everyone does. I think the key item is you were in a fully integrated school. Utah is like 80% white so that might not be the case. Either way you are inferring way too much into the sign just like all the anti dei trumplicans.

 

[RF667799]

If the statement is “Everyone is welcome here,” with little raised white, black, and brown hands with hearts on them, then you don’t need to be genius to make the obvious inference that they’re not welcome somewhere outside of that space on the basis of race. That is not a “content-neutral” stance.

That inference is driven by your own perception.

"Everyone Is Welcome Here" doesn't include that there are necessarily other specific places everyone is not welcome. There certainly is no rational inference that lack of a sign distinguishes those unwelcoming places.

 

[RF667799]

No, it's not.

Yes. False as you admitted yourself. If it wasn't true for my example, it isn't categorically true.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Yes. False as you admitted yourself. If it wasn't true for my example, it isn't categorically true.

It is true in the context in which it used it

to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.

 

[RF667799]

No, it's not.

Yes. False as you admitted yourself. If it wasn't true for my example, it isn't categorically true

what a bunch of weird nonsense.



More weird nonsense.

The ddistrictis in fact bigoted for saying that "everyone is welcome here" is not content nuetral.

You've argued it has political content.

Of course it was.

Its bigoted because it implies that everyone is not welcome.

Your position is exactly that.

Right the district is wrong.

The sign expresses national education policy and federal law.

People that see a sign saying "Everyone is welcome here" as problematic dont need to be near our kids.

Your argument is those people are not welcome where there is a sign saying everyone is welcome.

 

[RF667799]

It is true in the context in which it used it

to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.

Your statement includes no such context. Try being more clear next time, and you won't have to go back and try to change your statement when it's exposed as false.

 

[bomberfox]

I don't tolerate pistachio ice cream. My family is tolerant of my intolerance though.

Hmmm....I'm not seeing a contradiction.

Excluding people from education is very much different. I shouldnt have to explain this to you.

 

[bomberfox]

I need nothing more to refute your earlier claim that what I gave, and what you have now agreed with. No need to take your race bait.

Thats the subject of this thread. You tried for a metaphor in relation to this thread.

 

[NolanVoyd]

You've argued it has political content.

No, I've argued it doesnt.

Your position is exactly doesn't.

Nonsense.

Your argument is those people are not welcome where there is a sign saying everyone is welcome.

to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.

 

[RF667799]

Excluding people from education is very much different. I shouldnt have to explain this to you.

Thats the subject of this thread. You tried for a metaphor in relation to this thread.

@NolanVoyd failed in his goalpost move, but you think you have a better one.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Your statement includes no such context.

My statement was in the context of this discussion.

that context.

See.post 276 and 385, from friday.

Try being more clear next time, and you won't have to go back and try to change your statement when it's exposed as false.

I've been saying the same thing the whole time.

You just didn't understand even after I explained it to you. Two days ago.

 

[RF667799]

No, I've argued ot doesnt.

Nonsense.

to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.

Why are you now scrambling my words in the versions of my posts that you publish?

 

[NolanVoyd]

@NolanVoyd failed in his goalpost move, but you think you have a better one.

No goalposts move. That has been my point all along.

I explained it to you days ago.

 

[RF667799]

No goalposts move. That has been my point all along.

I explained it to you days ago.

If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory

Statement is false. A single counter-example proved it false.