• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Everyone welcome" is now unacceptable.

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

If the claim is the district is bigoted for forcing her to take it down then you’re admitting that her sign was not content-neutral, correct? Like the district policy said it should have been?

Its bigoted because it implies that everyone is not welcome.

So the the sign meant people outside her classroom were bigots, ergo it was political, right?

Right the district is wrong.

One would hope the people who wrote their own policies and enforced them would understand them.

The sign expresses national education policy and federal law.

But the point you missed is federal civil rights policy is not content neutral. It has a definite political purpose and agenda. Dividing the country based on race isn’t it, or, at least, that wasn’t the intent when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written.

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

Just follow the policy. Simple. 🤷‍♂️
 
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.

That’s a fair point. But I still don’t think we get to MLK’s promised land in this country whereby people will be judged “not by the color of their skin but the content of their character” by emphasizing skin color over character.

Either way you are inferring way too much into the sign just like all the anti dei trumplicans.

I didn’t go so far as to infer that the district was run by a bunch of “****ing fascist assholes” who weren’t simply trying to enforce their “content-neutral” policy on room decor. That’s a pretty political tirade to a neutral, non-political sign. 🤷‍♂️
 
That’s a fair point. But I still don’t think we get to MLK’s promised land in this country whereby people will be judged “not by the color of their skin but the content of their character” by emphasizing skin color over character.



I didn’t go so far as to infer that the district was run by a bunch of “****ing fascist assholes” who weren’t simply trying to enforce their “content-neutral” policy on room decor. That’s a pretty political tirade to a neutral, non-political sign. 🤷‍♂️
Sign was up for years until the fascist assholes came to power. Quite an appropriate response in my opinion. Don't like it, too bad.
 
If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory

Statement is false. A single counter-example proved it false.
Statement is true in this context.

to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.
 
If the claim is the district is bigoted for forcing her to take it down then you’re admitting that her sign was not content-neutral, correct?
no, the sign is totally nuetral. In fact it is national education policy and federal law.

And yes it is totally bogoted to tell her to take down a sign that says "everyone is welcome here".
Like the district policy said it should have been?
It is content nuetral.

They are bigoted MAGA idiots.
So the the sign meant people outside her classroom were bigots, ergo it was political, right?
Nope. It meant what it said
Just follow the policy. Simpe.

Applying that policy to her sign is full blown idiocy.
 
Last edited:
That inference is driven by your own perception.

Of course, but it didn’t require much thought. The district saw through it as well.

"Everyone Is Welcome Here" doesn't include that there are necessarily other specific places everyone is not welcome.

Specific, like the classroom next door? No. But she didn’t have to be specific to make her point.

There certainly is no rational inference that lack of a sign distinguishes those unwelcoming places.

Who knows. 🤷‍♂️ But without more context I’m not going to second-guess the district’s decision on this.
 
Statement is true in this context.

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

The conTENT you're adding in desperation.
 
You already topped it with your OP.

No, I am sorry, you took this WAY too far afield.

Where do you get that a sign that implies nothing of the sort, simply saying you are welcome HERE, means you aren't welcome any place else? That America is a "horrible place".

The leap in connection between the two points you are trying to put side by side is unsubstantiated, without logic, and lacks perspective.

If you can't fathom why that is the case... "quo erat demonstrandum"
 
At least the mask-off nature of Republican bigotry and white supremacy can no longer be debated, at least amongst serious people.

The cultists will continue to insist they aren't racist while they are literally doing the racism.
The problem is a lot of this country is too brain dead to see what is actually going on, or supports it.
 
Of course, but it didn’t require much thought. The district saw through it as well.



Specific, like the classroom next door? No. But she didn’t have to be specific to make her point.



Who knows. 🤷‍♂️ But without more context I’m not going to second-guess the district’s decision on this.

I suppose the district could enforce a no signs at all policy if they wanted.

I don't have to accept there's political content in that sign just because others claim they can see it. They're seeing something that is literally not there.
 
Statement is true in this context.

to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.
Anyone that says we have to tolerate bigotry is most likely wanting their own bigotry tolerated so they can live life comfortably without being worried about being called a piece of shit as the least of the conseuqnces they should face.
 
The conTENT you're adding in desperation.
I have been saying the same thing since the beginning.

That has been my point all along. That is the context of this thread.

I havent added anything.
.in fact I've been explaining that to you for days. See posts 276 ansmd 285 from friday.
 
no, the sign is totally nuetral. In fact it is national education policy and federal law.

And yes it is totally bogoted to tell her to take down a sign that says "everyone is welcome here".

It is content nuetral.

They are bigoted MAGA idiots.

Nope. It meant what it said


Applying that policy to ger sign is full blown idiocy.

So you don't believe there's implied content that Maga aren't welcome there? In other words, Maga are welcome too.
 
So you don't believe there's implied content that Maga aren't welcome there? In other words, Maga are welcome too.
Of course they are.

Its Idaho. Most of her kids families are MAGA no doubt . Nothing suggests they arent perfectly welcome in her class.
 
Of course they are.

Its Idaho. Most of her kids families are MAGA no doubt . Nothing suggests they arent perfectly welcome in her class.

So they should tolerate the presence of people who might be non-inclusive themselves.
 
So they should tolerate the presence of people who might be non-inclusive themselves.
Sure. Children. Regular people even if they support an awful movement.

Thats different then welcoming the klan or Nazis who are the embodiment of intollerance.
 
Sure. Children. Regular people even if they support an awful movement.

Thats different then welcoming the klan or Nazis who are the embodiment of intollerance.

Plenty here claim Maga ARE Nazis. And Nazis are a pretty awful movement.

So how would you distinguish these people who are unwelcome in a place where everyone is welcome?
 
Minorities have been excluded for better paying jobs in the past because black minorities had no access to higher education during segregation.

No, a lot of it was from progressive labor unions. Progressives didn't like the idea of newly freed blacks competing with white workers, so they formed unions to keep them out of the workforce:

Here is black historian W.E.B. Du Bois in 1918:

I carry on the title page, for instance, of this magazine the Union label, and yet I know, and everyone of my Negro readers knows, that the very fact that this label is there is an advertisement that no Negro’s hand is engaged in the printing of this magazine, since the International Typographical Union systematically and deliberately excludes every Negro that it dares from membership, no matter what his qualifications.

Another "gift" from the progressive movement.
 
No, a lot of it was from progressive labor unions. Progressives didn't like the idea of newly freed blacks competing with white workers, so they formed unions to keep them out of the workforce:

Here is black historian W.E.B. Du Bois in 1918:



Another "gift" from the progressive movement.

That was one of the impressive aspects of the 1963 March of Washington. It was supported by unions.
 
So they should tolerate the presence of people who might be non-inclusive themselves.
If they dont want to be inclusive nobody has to accommodate them and they can self exclude
 
If they dont want to be inclusive nobody has to accommodate them and they can self exclude

How do you identify these people who aren't as perfectly inclusive as yourself?
 
How do you identify these people who aren't as perfectly inclusive as yourself?
By the dirty looks and expletives and parental yapping. They tend to see themselves out. Who said anything about perfect?
 
By the dirty looks and expletives and parental yapping. They tend to see themselves out. Who said anything about perfect?

So by their actions, not by their membership in a tribe.
 
Back
Top Bottom