this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
293 points (99.0% liked)

News

27317 readers
4538 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This policy is designed to maintain consistency across all classrooms while ensuring that no one group is targeted or offended by the display of certain items.

Mmmm.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Removing this display does literally the exact opposite of that.

[–] credo@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

The key in that phrase is “offended”. You see, right-wing parents get offended when brown people are welcomed.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, but it triggers future homophobic, white incels!

[–] CheeseToastie@lazysoci.al 3 points 15 hours ago

What about the straight white cis men?? When will someone think of them???

[–] 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Logically that means whoever would be offended by that sign is offended because part of everyone is people who are not like them, i.e. they are admitting their preconceived bias. Those people are who most need this sign, so that they can learn that not everyone is like them. Those people need to go back to 6th grade.

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

On the surface, the policy sounds completely reasonable. That kind of thing is probably standard in most schools the world over.

What’s insane is that we’re at a point where “welcoming people” is offensive to somebody.

Or maybe more realistically, it’s easy to feign offence at a bland statement like that and be a bigot without being forced to say the quiet part out loud.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Also, isn't it the Republicans that love to plaster on a big punchable smirk and tell everyone they don't have a right to not be offended? I mean, in this, they are actually correct - people do have a free speech right to be absolute assholes in what they do and say, for the most part. Free speech does have its limits, yes, but if someone else gets offended, well....too bad. Free speech is there to protect speech others do not like and yes, that includes speech that will offend liberals.

But wow, the very second the right might have the least bit of offense - they think the government should step in.

See for example the actual political correctness they try to enforce around the rituals when a song plays at a sportsball event, or forcing kids to say "under god" while they force them to say the pledge at schools. Or about burning flags in protest, or a president they support being burned in effigy. Or trying to get their book club smuggled into schools. Or not genuflecting for "the troops", but only when there is a profitable war of aggression on the table, and so on. Or people not going out of their way to say, pointedly, "MERRY XMAS" (vs. the easy shorthand of Happy Holidays to cover both xmas and New Years, FFS. GD these babies are such whiners. Saying Happy Holidays was never a problem until these assholes had to act like it was some personal insult to them, even if they were just jagoffs that were only nominal xtians anyway. ) to these special snowflakes.

Apparently, they think they have the right to not be offended their entire fucking lives.

[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I understand uniformity and all, but there's also a lot of over-sheltering going on. Part of being ready for the world is knowing things out there are rarely fair and most of us get offended at one point or another. You learn to brush it off and grow thicker skin, making you a stronger individual.

[–] echolalia@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago

I agree, we shouldn't be coddling folk triggered by messages like "Everyone is Welcome". They need to toughen up and learn to accept messages of inclusivity.

They SHOULD feel uncomfortable if they don't like this sign. It'll put hair on their chest.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I strongly disagree with you.

Aside from the fact that teaching children to be inclusive and accepting is the path to these things being normal in the future, “well you have to learn to be offended” is the shield of the bully. It’s what people who want to be assholes say to protect their assholery.

But you know what, if someone needs to learn to be offended then maybe it’s the bigots and bullies that need to learn that inclusive language is here to stay and to just deal with it.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I agree with that last part, but I do think the notion that people should not learn that they won't be offended is not a great life lesson. I also don't think anyone should be messaging that bullies are right or that they are given a free pass and so on.

But I think instilling a certain amount of resilience in everyone would be beneficial, long term. Life throws a lot of shit at you, including a barrage of offensive things.

Ironically, it actually turns out that the cons are weaponizing this sort of thing by demanding the signs come down, because they are claiming they are "offended".

[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure why we're name calling (that's what bullies do, right?) but I was definitely the receiver of the bullying growing up and have never bullied others.

I think the sign is fine and when I see signs that aren't inclusive of me, I'm fine with that too. If my kids see something that they are uncomfortable with, I'll talk to them about it. I'm not going to storm down to the principal and demand to know why someone dared to not include my child. Over-sheltering kids does them an injustice because they're unprepared. That's the point I was making, not some pro-bigot diatribe or whatever you're describing.

We absolutely should be inclusive, and we should also prepare our children for an imperfect world. You can do both.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

If you don’t see a problem with the sign being up then I’m not sure why you needed to offer a counterpoint that we’re “over sheltering” children. Taking the time to write out a rebuttal sure would seem to indicate that you think the signs coming down are a good thing.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago

Maybe they should grow thick enough skin to not get offended at this sign.

[–] PineRune@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I beat my kids to make them stronger

Okay then.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't see how people are so opposed to the idea that "we should help our children become strong and robust so that they're not offended by everything".

Life is a lot easier when you can handle people saying and doing things you don't like without it breaking you. I'm not saying injustice should be tolerated: Quite the opposite. I'm saying that fighting injustice is easier if you are robust enough withstand it when it's directed at you.

My impression is that that's what you mean, in which case I wholly agree.

[–] natecox@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is that It’s a cop out, a ruse, a diversion, a disingenuous misrepresentation of what’s happening here. It’s a flat out straw man.

Casting taking down signs that say “everyone is welcome here” as strengthening our children is simply not an assertion based in reality. Yes, we need to be real with our children so they can be prepared for the real world but this scenario is not applicable to that argument.

I would argue that taking down these signs weakens our children by sending a message that being different is bad—the exact message racists and bigots have been pushing forever. It robs them of a little bit of their humanity and we should not be tolerant of this.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago

It's funny how we interpreted OP's comment completely oppositely. I interpreted it as

Classrooms should, as a starter, be uniform. However, we need to expose kids to all kinds of things and not overly shelter them from different opinions, therefore these signs should remain.

If I understand correctly, you interpret OP as arguing that the signs should be removed?