"Everyone welcome" is now unacceptable.

[Nickyjo]

It wasn't. It contained racial content, and was totally unnecessary for any purpose other than to make a political statement to children. "Hey kids: the world is racist, but not us."

The word “everyone” has racial content?

But I get your point. The statement is a patriotic affirmation of one of the best characteristics of our country, and an implied put down of bigotry. Pretty good pro-American values sentiment that should be part of every curriculum. We are justly proud of US contributions to human liberty. We can also be proud of the Statue of Liberty and Emma Lazarus’s words. Contrast that with Trump’s un-American, unpatriotic comments about not wanting immigrants from “shit hole countries.”

 

[JMR]

I agree. On surface level it seems stupid for the school to let a teacher quit over that. I stated this at least three or four times before.

And if you could get to where you think the school made an unreasonable demand we would fully agree....

So if you can teach kids with just stapling signs to the wall what are teachers for?

Where did you go to elementary school? Walls are covered with signs, and reminders, and helpful info. that the teacher uses to reinforce the things they teach.

 

[CLAX1911]

The word “everyone” has racial content?

The word all in the phrase all lives matter apparently does.

But I get your point. The statement was an affirmation of one of the best characteristics of our country, and an implied put down of bigotry. Pretty good pro-American values sentiment that should be part of every curriculum.

 

[OlNate]

My original message to @NolanVoyd was that he had adopted the idea that the sign was inherently exclusionary in nature, along with some of those posters who used that as their basis to oppose the sign.

He tried to morph that into a claim that *I* had the position that the sign was exclusionary, and so must answer who it excludes.

**** that. I said no such thing, and I have no burden to answer malignant, bad faith questions.

OK, but would you answer it for me? I told you, I don't have an axe to grind, I'm interested in learning more about what you saw, because you were rather vague.

Or, if you view the questions asked as some kind of trap, it's possible that you saw your answer as leaving you vulnerable to attacks on your philosophy / morality, and are uncomfortable having that called out, no problem, just own that and move on.

I often ask questions designed to make a point, and put my "opponent" in a position to make my point for me. It's a debate tactic on a debate forum.

So, either make your point or bow out, I guess. You don't get to avoid a loss by avoiding a question, that's not how this works. You put forward a both sides observation without specifying what that observation entails. Be specific, or retract.

It's pretty easy, bud... and if you're worried you might be wrong, don't, people, including myself, are wrong on here all the time.

 

[CLAX1911]

And if you could get to where you think the school made an unreasonable demand we would fully agree....

I don't know I don't know if the school made any decision at all I don't know if it was based on the sign. The only word we've got is the world's most contemptible liars and the teacher herself

Where did you go to elementary school? Walls are covered with signs, and reminders, and helpful info.

A lot of it was propaganda. And advertisements Believe It or not schools get money for posting those sorts of things.

that the teacher uses to reinforce the things they teach.

 

[RF667799]

OK, but would you answer it for me? I told you, I don't have an axe to grind, I'm interested in learning more about what you saw, because you were rather vague.

Or, if you view the questions asked as some kind of trap, it's possible that you saw your answer as leaving you vulnerable to attacks on your philosophy / morality, and are uncomfortable having that called out, no problem, just own that and move on.

I often ask questions designed to make a point, and put my "opponent" in a position to make my point for me. It's a debate tactic on a debate forum.

So, either make your point or bow out, I guess. You don't get to avoid a loss by avoiding a question, that's not how this works. You put forward a both sides observation without specifying what that observation entails. Be specific, or retract.

It's pretty easy, bud... and if you're worried you might be wrong, don't, people, including myself, are wrong on here all the time.

You want me to answer on behalf of other people, who hold a position I don't. I suggest you query those other people.

 

[OlNate]

You want me to answer on behalf of other people, who hold a position I don't. I suggest you query those other people.

No, I want you to share your observation. You made the assertion, that's why I'm asking you.

Last chance, bud, then I'm letting you off the hook, left to assume the validity of your initial point on my own rather than understanding it from your perspective, it's up to you. I've lead you to water, drink or don't.

 

[Nickyjo]

The word all in the phrase all lives matter apparently does.

It does in a way if it is a rebuke to Black Lives Matter. The phrase disingenuously misses the BLM slogan’s point.

 

[OlNate]

I don't know I don't know if the school made any decision at all I don't know if it was based on the sign. The only word we've got is the world's most contemptible liars and the teacher herself

A lot of it was propaganda. And advertisements Believe It or not schools get money for posting those sorts of things.

Link to evidence schools being paid to hang motivational posters, please?

Legitimately interested, and for purposes beyond this thread.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Then you shouldn't have wrote the below post, where you do claim that not everyone is welcome despite a sign that says they are.

Clarified.

And you still cany adress my question.

See post 308.

You are making a fool of yourself.

 

[CLAX1911]

It does in a way if it is a rebuke to Black Lives Matter.

The only way it could possibly rebuke black lives matter is if black lives are not lies because they're included in all.

You can make all exclusive then you can make everyone exclusive.

The phrase disingenuously misses the BLM slogan’s point.

Right it's argument against supremacy. BLM was a supremacy movement. That's why it's racist to include them with everyone else because they're supreme.

So prove everyone means something different than all.

 

[RF667799]

No, I want you to share your observation. You made the assertion, that's why I'm asking you.

Last chance, bud, then I'm letting you off the hook, left to assume the validity of your initial point on my own rather than understanding it from your perspective, it's up to you. I've lead you to water, drink or don't.

My observation was that some people thought there was a message of exclusion in that sign. They haven't been reticent about saying it in this thread. @NolanVoyd being one of them. So ask those people, and ask @NolanVoyd why he tried to characterize my observation of others as being my position. I don't give two shits whether you love him or not, he lied and it isn't the first time he's demonstrated that tendency to argue in bad faith.

My position is that the sign is inclusive when it says "Everyone".

 

[RF667799]

Clarified.

And you still cany adress my question.

See post 308.

You are making a fool of yourself.

All you have to do is agree the sign is inclusive of "everyone", as it plainly says. Then retract the times you said it isn't.

 

[Nickyjo]

The only way it could possibly rebuke black lives matter is if black lives are not lies because they're included in all.

You can make all exclusive then you can make everyone exclusive.



Right it's argument against supremacy. BLM was a supremacy movement. That's why it's racist to include them with everyone else because they're supreme.

So prove everyone means something different than all.

C’mon. Black Lives Matter means that a Black youth shot due to say, a careless mistake by a cop is not just another dead n-word in the street. The phrase has an implied meaning about the universal value of human life, similar to that of Blue Lives Matter, that cops are not racist pigs to be scorned, whose lives and safety are any less precious than others’.

 

[OlNate]

My observation was that some people thought there was a message of exclusion in that sign. They haven't been reticent about saying it in this thread. @NolanVoyd being one of them. So ask those people, and ask @NolanVoyd why he tried to characterize my observation of others as being my position. I don't give two shits whether you love him or not, he lied and it isn't the first time he's demonstrated that tendency to argue in bad faith.

My position is that the sign is inclusive when it says "Everyone".

Hey, I love you too, bud, now come on. I'm Canadian, so long as you're not trying to bend us over, we kinda have to love everybody.

And I heartily agree with your position. In fact, I would suggest that those with problematic / hateful / exclusionary / intolerant views, irrespective of which "side" they claim, should be most welcome, as the classroom would have rules that would prevent their ugly from getting on anyone else, and hopefully they learn a better way.

I remain curious about your observation, but since you clearly don't want to share it, beyond saying you had it, well, i guess I'll just have to be curious. Maybe next time don't throw your line out if you don't want to catch a fish.

 

[j brown's body]

C’mon. Black Lives Matter means that a Black youth shot due to say, a careless mistake by a cop is not just another dead n-word in the street. The phrase has an implied meaning about the universal value of human life, similar to that of Blue Lives Matter, that cops are not racist pigs to be scorned, whose lives and safety are any less precious than others’.

Now, with this sign, "all lives matter" seems to be a problem now.

 

[AZRWinger]

I see. Only you can insult. Brilliant.

You poor thing. Thought you'd sling insults with no retort. Now all you can do is play victim.

 

[CLAX1911]

C’mon. Black Lives Matter means that a Black youth shot due to say, a careless mistake by a cop is not just another dead n-word in the street.

So other lives that end this way don't matter? How is this not a supremacy movement?

The phrase has an implied meaning about the universal value of human life,

No it was exclusive to black lives to the point where if you included others it was condemned

similar to that of Blue Lives Matter, that cops are not racist pigs to be scorned, whose lives and safety are any less precious than others’.

Saying exclusively that only one kind of life matters is necessarily saying others don't.

It was a supremacy movement.

 

[OlNate]

You poor thing. Thought you'd sling insults with no retort. Now all you can do is play victim.

Lol... this guy acting like we're not familiar with his MO.

 

[Nickyjo]

So other lives that end this way don't matter? How is this not a supremacy movement?

No it was exclusive to black lives to the point where if you included others it was condemned

Saying exclusively that only one kind of life matters is necessarily saying others don't.

It was a supremacy movement.

Didn’t you just contradict yourself? Is Blue Lives Matter part of a supremacy movement?

Saying Black Lives Matter is inclusive, not exclusive. When my teen White son marched in a BLM-type demonstration with Black and White friends some years ago, he wasn’t putting down any of those friends, he was showing solidarity. Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter means that those lives also matter. Did the phrase of many years ago, Black is Beautiful, mean that Whites or Hispanics or Asians are ugly? A sad part of US Black history includes skin lighteners and hair straighteners that reflected an awkward acknowledgement of inferiority preached by the dominant culture.

 

[CLAX1911]

Didn’t you just contradict yourself? Is Blue Lives Matter part of a supremacy movement?

No I didn't contradict myself you just assumed that I agree with blue lives matter it's the same as black lives matter.

Did you know all lives includes black and blue and red and purple and green and orange and everything else?

Black and blue are exclusive.

Saying Black Lives Matter is inclusive, not exclusive.

Ignorance. Black lives excludes all others.

When my teen White son marched in a BLM-type demonstration with Black and White friends some years ago, he wasn’t putting down any of those friends, he was showing solidarity.

No he was sucking up.

Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter means that those lives also matter.

No they mean only those lives matter and nobody else.

All lives matter is the only way you can have an also.

Did the phrase of many years ago, Black is Beautiful, mean that Whites or Hispanics or Asians are ugly?

Yes I get that there are people that prefer One race over the other when it comes to beauty and that's fine. I excluded entire sex when I talk about beauty.

A sad part of US Black history

There is no such thing as black history.

includes skin lighteners and hair straighteners that reflected an awkward acknowledgement of inferiority preached by the dominant culture.

Yes getting supremacy movements to compensate for an inferiority complex is a pretty standard thing I think that's why people join the manosphere and the ku Klux Klan.

 

[NolanVoyd]

@NolanVoyd being one of them.

Just stop.

You are making a fool of yourself.

adress post 308

 

[RF667799]

Just stop.

You are making a fool of yourself.

adress post 308

You missed a great deal of my post. Here's an observation I made recently. When in a corner, you post edited versions of my posts. It's a tell. You want to make that the conversation instead of the corner in which you're stuck.

But anyway...my post in its entirety.

My observation was that some people thought there was a message of exclusion in that sign. They haven't been reticent about saying it in this thread. @NolanVoyd being one of them. So ask those people, and ask @NolanVoyd why he tried to characterize my observation of others as being my position. I don't give two shits whether you love him or not, he lied and it isn't the first time he's demonstrated that tendency to argue in bad faith.

My position is that the sign is inclusive when it says "Everyone".

 

[NolanVoyd]

My observation was that some people thought there was a message of exclusion in that sign. They haven't been reticent about saying it in this thread. [B]@NolanVoyd being one of them. [/B]

We covered that.

Just stop.

You are making a fool of yourself.

My position is that the sign is inclusive when it says "Everyone".

We agree on that.

How the hell are you still missing the point after i've told you that a dozen times?

 

[RF667799]

We covered that.

Just stop.

You are making a fool of yourself.

We agree on that.

How the hell are you still missing the point after i've told you that a dozen times?

Then you shouldn't have wrote the below, and shouldn't have tried to claim that I said the poster was exclusive.

Its not the policy it's the application.

How is that message not neutral?

How does saying everyone is welcome reflect personal opinions, religious beliefs, or political ideologies?

Unless your personal opinion, religious beliefs, or political ideology Is that everyone is not welcome.

If that is the case you have no business in public school, because public school policy is that everyone is indeed welcome.