[nerdponx]

> As an example, I spoke with someone recently here in Florida that supported the "don't say Gay" bill for no other reason than, "it pisses off liberals." There's far more tribal support/opposition to things that have nothing to do with logic or reason. My neighbor is a prime example.

I think the lesson here is that not everyone has a rational, logical, or considerate reason for supporting what they support. Showing "contrasting views" is more than just putting two earnest-but-incompatible opinions side by side on a webpage.

You also need to include stuff like "I support this bill because it triggers snowflake liberals / gets back at those evil conservatives" and "I support this bill because I am smart and it sounds like a good idea."

> "Believe progressive ideas are dominating public education. Instead, parents should be the ones in charge of their children’s education — especially when it comes to determining what topics their children are ready for."

You also need to be able and willing to see through euphemisms, coded speech, and dogwhistles.

[octopoc]

I believe in parent rights. That is not a euphemism, coded speech, or dogwhistling. I believe the parents are responsible for raising their own children, I want to be the one to explain sex to them. I don't want the school to do it. This is one example of where the Narrative Project is spot on, at least for me and pretty much every conservative I know.

[etchalon]

Was there some large news story about Grade 3 teachers explaining the intricacies of docking that I missed?

[nerdponx]

I believe in the importance of law and order in society, but I still freely admit that "law and order" rhetoric usually means something specific and carries a handful of specific implications.

[riskable]

> I want to be the one to explain sex to them

There's two problems with this:

1) Parents often don't do that. Resulting in all sorts of societal problems e.g. increased teenage pregnancy, STDs, suicides, etc. We can argue about the age at which they need to learn about sex but ultimately they do have to learn about it and no, parents can't be trusted to teach these sorts of things (if history is any guide!).

2) You assume that the bill in question only prevents discussions of sex (as in, intercourse). That's not the only thing it prohibits. It prohibits discussions of sexuality. As in, you can't even acknowledge that same-sex relationships or transgendered people even exist. Sounds like it wouldn't come up? Think again: Teachers and students don't just exist inside a classroom. They will encounter each other regularly in the community. If some kid sees a (male) teacher kissing their husband in the Walmart parking lot how is the teacher supposed to respond to that when asked about it in school the next day?

You can say that the teacher should tell the kid to mind their own business or some other, "avoid talking about it by all means possible" excuse but it still puts the teacher at risk. In fact, schools might not even hire gay or transgendered teachers just to avoid that risk... Which is one of the big problems with the bill: It gives school administrators an excuse not to hire someone based on sex.

Remember: The bill isn't about curriculum. No Florida curriculum for K-3 has any sex-related material. It's a tool for religious/conservative parents to attack gay and transgendered teachers.

[all2]

[flagged]

[nerdponx]

In this context, a "don't say gay" bill sounds like the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

Perhaps sex in its entirety should not be taught before 5th grade. That's when I learned it in school. I always thought it seemed a bit early, but I suspect it was done in order to get ahead of wet kids might be exposed to from 8th graders when they moved up to middle school.

But preventing discussion of sexuality does nothing about the general problem of teaching sex education too early. It's just piling worse on top of bad.

I see no merit in banning discussion of topics like "sometimes men love men instead of women". That's literally a fact about the world, even if you think it's an abomination or whatever.

Moreover, let's extend the parent-choice principle further. Should teaching evolution in schools be exempt because some parents don't believe in it? What about the germ theory of disease? It's simply not a logically-sound or morally-consistent justification for a "don't say gay" law.

[Aeolun]

> Nothing. The point is that it is the parents' responsibility to address these issues.

What are they going to say? “I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to talk about that. Ask your parents?”

[netsharc]

> I think the lesson here is that not everyone has a rational, logical, or considerate reason for supporting what they support.

Agree. And a lot of times people just grasp the closest semi-logical explanation for the decisions that makes them look decent, because in their mind of course they're a decent person.

Like some Europeans enthusiastically welcoming Ukranian refugees although they were hostile towards Middle Eastern refugees. So they rationalize by saying these are women and children, and the M.E. refugees were men who should've stayed and faced (fought) their government's bullets...