Discussion in 'Debate & Marathon Threads Archive' started by SF_Giants66, May 28, 2014.
May 28, 2014
I have no words...
I have lots of words, but most of them wouldn't be very polite.
Well, I guess in fairness to the mayor I wasn't particularly enamored of the proposal that was under discussion either. Having a "safe zone" that kids can run to if they're being bullied pretty much guarantees no kid will ever go there.
If he had said that, it wouldn't have caused an uproar, but what he said is that kids can simply just grow a pair.
A special safe zone? I'm not sure it is necessary should all school staff take the issues seriously.
I don't necessarily disagree with his stance but he probably should have worded it differently.
I'm not saying teachers shouldn't try to stop and protect kids from bullying, but, eventually kids do have to learn healthy and appropriate social/coping skills that allow them to stand up for themselves.
I'm not saying this is easy, but I feel it's necessary because parents and teachers cannot be everywhere to protect bullied kids.
Even if all staff members take the issue seriously, this may not be enough to fully stop bullying. IMHO, I don't care how vigilant teachers are - we can't stop ALL bullying. There is just so much of it going on and social media only makes it harder to control.
Sadly, I'll agree with this. I have a lovely group of children, and they don't bully nearly as much as many third grade classes, but I still have the occasional teary-eyed child at recess time.
My school's biggest bullying issue this year revolves around students using social media to bully and harass girls about the sexual acts they are doing. Overall, it has been a nightmare that has led to many fights this year.
Some of these girls help bring this negative attention on themselves because they are the ones posting things and this makes the issue even hard to combat. We cannot control kids social media usage outside of school (we can't really control it during the school day either). We've tried so many ways to fix this problem at my school, but have yet to develop an effective plan of attack since so much on the bullying is happening on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Sometimes, teachers cannot fix and solve all bullying problems.
I'm about to enter my 3rd semester in the school of education, and I honestly am kind of tired of hearing about bullying every single class myself. It is important, but I think in this video you are seeing an example of both extremes.
One wanting to step it up and create this special program called the safe zone that I cannot imagine any child is going to have the first impulse to go to, and at the other end you have a mayor saying they should just grow a pair. Neither side is correct in my opinion.
mayor sounds like a bully, safe zones sound like "victim" mentality.
the key is to focus on building community and the need to help one another and away from bullying.
students bully for power and control. if you build a school environment that rewards working together to achieve common goals instead of rewarding either the bully or the victim, then it will be less of a problem.
there will still be a problem but we have to address both sides, not just the bully but also the students who are labelled victims. it dehumanizes both parties and draws lines that do need to be breached.
The majority of bullying from my research is somehow sexual related. I generally think many adults in areas tend to promote their kids bullying this way, with calling gays disgusting, immoral, etc., the conservative mentality of anti-sex education, and more.
I wasn't even out of the closet until over six years after graduating high school, but was constantly called names because I liked to perform instead of playing sports, and the word gay was used as a way to express something unpleasant and often either promoted or ignored by teachers, and then it gets added to by kids like me who went to church with all this talk about homosexuality being unnatural, etc.
The point isn't necessarily that the LGBT community deserves extra sensitivity regarding bullying, but the fact that many schools can't discuss issues such as these and promote the lifestyles as acceptable without parents and politicians going off about how it is preaching political views to students is going to make it even more complicated to get many cases of bullying issues to end.
This isn't just about gays, lesbians, and transgenders, but not being able to get into the core of some of the cases for bullying and clearing up some students misconceptions is going to make it tough to reduce it. Imagine what would happen if people still were to be making a major case about accepting others based on cultural and race differences.
motto: you don't have to agree with other's beliefs or like them, you just have to learn how to work together to accomplish a common goal
I don't think people should push "acceptance" of certain life styles on others, but students should learn to respect a difference of opinion and still work together despite their cultural, racial or sexual differences.
We recently asked a few kids about what they might do about bullying, and we came up with an interesting idea of having a committee of students who have been bullied or just want to stop bullying that other students can come talk to.
The thing is, is that the first instinct of students who are bullied is to hide the fact that they are being bullied from teachers, and so it's very hard for us to work on it. However I thought the idea of a student run committee sounded interesting because they may be more likely to talk to students who would be their peers, and these students could pressure other students to cut the bullying out.
So it isn't important to encourage acceptance of differences?
I know people are going to talk about persuading students might interfere with the values the parents are trying to teach them, but quite personally, I really don't care. This is the exact kind of mindset that is making it harder to stop bullying. We don't have to tolerate intolerance. If a teacher reprimanded a student for telling a black and white couple it was wrong to be together it wouldn't be a problem, yet when telling students it is okay for two people to date because they are the same gender, it is such a hot button issue. Just because it is a religious belief doesn't make it different.
I don't agree with the "grow a pair" comment. With bullying though, I think it is such a popular topic in the media that every parent thinks their child is being bullied. A lot of the bullying cases I have seen are not real cases of bullying.
May 29, 2014
mmm wondering if you miss this part of the comment "but students should learn to respect a difference of opinion"
there is a difference between trying to change people's beliefs and opinions. which many people will resist. if someone tried to change your opinion and make you believe that gay marriage is wrong, you probably would rebel. in the same manner those who believe it is wrong will rebel if you say its acceptable. therefore instead of starting war over it, my suggestion is to have the students focus on what they have in common, a common goal and learn to work with each other despite their difference of opinion on other topics not relating direct with school.
not listening fully to someone's statement is why many people never find solutions to problems.
I love this! I don't always agree with the "cultural norms" of certain things, but I DO want to teach my children that disagreement with someone (for ANY reason) is NEVER a cause for bullying, teasing, mocking, etc. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you cannot still be good classmates, coworkers, or even friends!
I've done a LOT of research on bullying for my graduate degree, and I think sexuality is only one of the targets bullies use, although it's a major one. The targets are anyone who can be perceived as "other". One of my students was tortured in his school for being SHORTER than anyone else. He transferred to my school after being shoved into too many lockers. Another was bullied for being too poor to afford the right clothes. Two of my kiddos were bullied for their sexuality, one for being cisgendered. When I was a kid, I was bullied for being Jewish and college-bound in a predominantly blue-collar Catholic neighborhood. I got it from everyone. Oh, and I was locker-sized, too.
Somehow, I don't think I have the ability to "grow a pair". That mayor is hopefully going to have some major opposition at his next election.
What research have you conducted on this topic?
I'm confused about your statement about how "many adults in areas tend to promote their kids bullying in this way...." What areas? Geographic areas? Do you really mean "many"?
I disagree that the majority of bullying cases pertain to sex, although that might be your experience. In my experience, most bullying has to do with physical appearance. I have no research to back that up--it's just based on what I've witnessed and experienced myself.
I'm just fortunate that the younger generation such as the class I'm in are starting to get into the schools and weed out the older teachers that are homophobic and seem to promote bullying or think we need to just let kids be kids.
Don't make assumptions based on age. On my staff, some of the teachers who turn the blindest eye to bullying are also the youngest. I'm one of the oldest on staff and will call it every time I see or hear it.
I agree that it is a generalization, but the statistics do show the most open minded on sexual and cultural differences are those of younger age.
I believe by "open minded" you mean accepting and agreeing. That may be the case, but even those that don't agree with differences don't necessarily believe that bullying someone because of them is acceptable. Another poster explained that already. Just because someone doesn't agree with something doesn't mean they will bully or allow bullying because of it.
No, but generally those who are accepting of it will less likely have part in bullying then those who play the constant card of, "I respect them, but don't condone what they are doing." They are treating sexual identity as if it is a drug addiction that they need to be healed from instead of just considering the bullies just pure bigots as they should be labeled as.
You have a crass way of putting things sometimes. I have NEVER seen a teacher promote bullying regardless of whether they were pro-gay or anti-gay.
And "weeding" out teachers who are not pro-gay isn't going to solve anything. How about educating them rather than "weeding them out"?
First of all, not everyone that does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle is necessarily homophobic and hates gay people. There can be a grey area and there is no need to always portray this as you (and pro-homosexual people) vs. those evil homophobes that are only evil because they don't agree with you. Also, just because a person does not agree with homosexuality, it does not mean they will promote or allow bullying to occur in their classroom.
I think you let your negative life experiences cloud your judgment and color your opinions, especially on this issue. I wonder if you know how to check these sentiments when you are talking to people in real life.
I agree SFGiants puts things rather bluntly at times.
I have seen teachers promote bullying, however. Teachers will sometimes arrange things in such a way that bullying is tacitly encouraged.
Take, for example, even the very common practice of picking team captains and then giving them alternate turns picking people to be on their team. Everyone knows who the "out-group" is by who gets picked last -- the setup itself mandates that kids define who is the least wanted among them. While this is one example, similar sorts of things happen in other circumstances. In each, the teacher is unintentionally promoting bullying.
"Weeding them out" is definitely the wrong phrase, as it suggests actively removing people. If what SFGiants is trying to say is that they're leaving their positions and younger (and more tolerant) people are coming in, "waiting them out" might be better.
I'm really not sure what this means. How can one "not accept" another person's personal legal lifestyle choice, and still "respect a difference of opinion"? When you say you don't accept a lifestyle that (presumably) has nothing to do with you, how are you being respectful?
May 30, 2014
Not everyone who is anti-gay promotes bullying about it, but that is just because they can't do it in person.
They go onto YouTube and post about how god hates fags and that they are just sex addicts out to ruin society with their homosexual agenda.
Their kindness attitude is just their game face until they get on their speakeasy internet sites and hate gay people.
However, their attitude about it may give them enough just to stifle the situation to keep their job, but deep down, I really don't believe they care about gays getting ripped on or bullied. That is why they tend to promote it, because they tell kids not to bully, but they don't lead by example, because their treating gays like drug addicts is setting up the bullying.
There is a thread in this forum that was recently posted about hearing "the single story". I suggest you watch the video linked in it.
You tend to make generalizations and accusations with very little to go on but your opinion and imagination. These stereotypes are just as damaging for others as they are for LGBT folks. You need to think outside yourself for just a moment and attempt to understand the viewpoints of others without wildly accusing them.
In my experience, those who troll sites like youtube and other news sites tend to be a few trolls who create many names and many accounts on different websites. These people may or may not be open about it in their personal lives, but that's still a far cry from saying that EVERY person who is not pro-gay is someone who trolls these sites, and wastes their time spreading hatred. I think most people have better things to do with their lives.
The point is, I think most people tend to try and be more tactful in person, but reserve their hatred for anonymous mediums of communication of ideas.
For that reason, I think the more religious people who have some issues with homosexuality just try to stop the actual act of harassment, but don't really care about the hatred and intolerance of homosexuals.
That would be sort of similar to the civil rights movement where I stopped a white guy from ridiculing and making racial slurs at a black guy in public, then pulled aside the white guy and said he was right about white supremacy, but to just tone down the harassment to avoid a fight.
Only in schools they switch white and black to straight and gay in modern society.
You absolutely can be respectful towards someone that shares opposing views without accepting those views yourself.
For example, I am very, very anti-infidelity while in marriage. However, I have worked with men who were cheating on their wives or who were married to the women they left their wives for. While their actions disgusted me I was still able to maintain a respectful working relationship with them. But I'd never "accept" what they were doing.
These are not people I'd invite into my group of friends but I can definitely see past the one sin they continued to commit. They had many other traits that were admirable. Just not that one.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this very common practice as an example of showing who the "out-group" is. Speaking from personal experience of one who was always picked last, it just meant I wasn't as athletic as those picked before me. That wasn't "bullying", it was just the truth. However, just because I was picked last for softball or football did not mean I was equally ostracized in all other social aspects. I had lots of friends in my class as well as other grade levels. When we chose teams for academic competitions, I was one of the first ones picked.
As for the sports teams, the teachers and coaches would always rotate who the team captains were and made sure that EVERY student (including myself) had a turn as team captain. And when it was MY turn to choose, I also chose the kids that had the best ability first, even though that meant choosing a couple of best friends later.
"Younger" does NOT mean "more tolerant". In fact, I would suggest that the younger generations seem to be far LESS tolerant of views different from their own than older generations are. Just because they may agree more on specific issues, does NOT mean they show more tolerance for those with views different from their own.
How can one "not accept" a different lifestyle or viewpoint, but still "respect" it? It's actually much easier than you might think.
One of my very best friends from college is also diametrically opposed to my views on almost every topic. He's very liberal, I'm very conservative. He's atheist, I'm a Born-Again Christian. We've had very vigorous debates on every "hot-button" topic you can name, but we still remain very close friends because, DESPITE our different viewpoints, we still RESPECT the other person as an individual.
One major area we disagree on is legalization of marijuana. He was an avid user in school, I was not. I still don't agree with his views on the drug, but I still respect his views. Another long-time friend of mine (previous co-worker) openly brags about her regular smoking of pot on FB. Again, I don't agree with her choices, but I still like and respect her as a person.
The fact that some folks can't understand how you can disagree or not like something, but still "respect" the person who sees nothing wrong with the same thing.
As for LGBT, my views do not conform to what some may think based on my religious values. I do not tolerate bullying in my classroom or my school for ANY reason; whether it is based on the person's looks, weight, clothes, lack of wealth, religious views, or lack of religious views. When I see people online making broad generalizations about Christians or other religious groups, I can't help wonder if they even realize they are displaying the same "branding" and intolerance themselves that they criticize so fiercely in others.
HOW can a person actually "respect" someone when they don't agree with that person's viewpoints, lifestyle or personal choices on different issues??? It's really very simple. You respect them by treating them as the individual they are. It really isn't that hard.
We are finding that if one doesn't openly agree with the "popular ideas" on many issues people are being intolerant. The lines between respect and agreement have been blurred to the point where many do believe that they are the same thing.
Also, I believe people will enter conversations about a topic and confuse disagreement in ideas with lack of respect and/or bullying. It is because of this blurring of the meaning of respect and acceptance that I believe that it is near impossible to have a discussion anymore without someone claiming to be bullied.
So suppose I said they're not "being intolerant", they're simply "not accepting your opinion"?
You might not see it that way, but I suspect a lot of people do.
So what does it mean to "accept" or "not accept", as opposed to "be intolerant of" if all of it amounts to what you feel inside? You've accepted, at least, that it's his business and not yours.
Correct, younger does not necessarily mean more tolerant for any individual. However, I believe as a statistical matter the younger are more tolerant. The reason is simple -- generally people are resistant to change, especially as they get settled in life. Further, with increased globalization people are exposed to a greater number of views at an earlier age than in the past.
I don't believe they are more tolerant. They may be more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, multiple baby daddies, drug use, (whatever the current hot issue is), but they are just as intolerant of others who have different opinions or beliefs. So, it may look like tolerance, it isn't. The shift of the percentage of the people on each side of the issue has shifted. I don't believe the young are tolerant, they just are more accepting of ideas that were seen as undesirable in the past. They are just as unaccepting of those that do not agree with them.
With respect, I think this is one place where you and Cerek may be incorrect. One doesn't need to be tolerant of racism or misogyny to be a tolerant person.
If it were political ideology, or differences in religion that would be one thing. These are things people have a choice in and they are a matter of differences of opinion and belief.
When dealing with LGBT matters however, we are often talking about an aspect of a person that a person can't help, and a segment of the community that has been historically ostracized because of it, and it's often the case that the discussion regards the limitation of rights of this minority. In those respects, it becomes more akin to racism and misogyny than differences in opinion.
I believe that when we do have these discussions, it's best to discuss respectfully, unlike how some members on here tend to do, but I agree with SF in regards to the fact that if you are actively working against and continuing the ostracizing of a minority either in thought or deed, for whatever your reasons are, you are not being respectful of these people. One does not need to tolerate intolerance to be tolerant.
I think some might believe that because they feel they're on the minority (or less of a majority) side.
There have been no calls for criminalizing straight sex (while laws against homosexual sex are still on the books in many states, albeit unenforceable). There have been no calls for laws or rituals that would coerce anyone into stating there are no gods.
Besides laws, people could previously easily be shunned by the entire community for things like racial differences. In some places they would not tolerate interracial proms. In some places intolerance meant being physically beaten, sometimes with tacit approval of the authorities.
It's hard for me to believe that racists and homophobes are really dealing with that level of response for their views (particularly since some of them have been previously codified in law -- that's not a subjective opinion, that's simple fact). And it's still gay kids who get beaten up, not kids who use the word "gay" as a slur.
Your story reminds me how my fifth grade gym teacher used to do things. We'd be divided into five times of five. What ever team won would become next week's captains. There would be times when the kids who got picked last were the captains. I was often a captain, because I was very good at sports. There was one kid in my class who had four left feet. Two or his legs and two for hands. He'd always whine and whine when he'd be pick last. One time I was captain, but I was the captain who go to pick fifth. I said "I pick Danny". Thinking he's stop his whining. The coach said "Are you sure you want to? By the time you get second pick, all the good players will be gone". Was that bullying? IMO, no. I can imagine that happening now a days and the gym teacher would be fired or made to apologize. Before anyone says anything about how would I feel, I had similar things happen to me as a child and it never phased me. For example, I was remedial math. One student said loudly when the teacher came in for my group "That's the teacher who works with the STUPID kids". My teacher said nothing. To me, and it happened to me, there's different between that and the student saying to me every day "You're stupid" or getting physical.
I think the problem is a lot of things called bullying today are not. We're not a world of special snow flakes, even if we treat children that way all the time. I especially worry as we compete for jobs and places of power from places like China where children are more prepared for life and it's bumps. Another example, I remember when people were claiming discrimination (bullying) when they weren't allowed to buy homes they didn't have a big enough down payment for. Then, they were allowed to buy them. That turned out well....
I think what you mean is they are less tolerant of intolerance. Being against homosexuality screams of intolerance, because the reason is simply that it is two men or two women being together. Nothing else.
I might disagree with someone's marriage because I don't think they are in love, I don't think they've been together long enough to make such a commitment, or I don't agree with the reason they are getting married.
However, just simply disagreeing because they are both men would be the same as if I disagreed because they married a Mexican.
Separate names with a comma.