This is terrible, not cool.
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/education/2016/02/26/students-anti-gay-badges-spark-anger-shadow-hills/81002938/
Discuss...and see what we can do about it.
>>5807115
let's enforce such badges for every anti lgbt person so I can know who to avoid
>>5807115
>people have different opinions than me
>what can we do
how about grow up for starters?
>>5807162
we can't afford to manufacture 6 billion badges, think of something else
Make a badge out of this and pass it on to every high school student in America.
Nothing. Freedom of speech is more important than your feelings.
You can wear stupid gay pride badges if you want.
>>5807115
>it's niggers
what a fucking surprise
>>5807115
-Increase funding to LGBT campus organizations/counseling resources/make a special assembly/etc. The LGBT kids need to understand that their school's faculty are on their side, and that they're safe at school.
-The administration and faculty better keep a sharp eye on those homophobic kids. So they don't start any type of physical violence, or possibly get bullied by other students for wearing those hateful badges.
Freedom of speech is fantastic, but that doesn't mean these badge wearers are free from lasting social consequences.
The anti-LGBT kids have every right to make and wear those badges. But they better be willing to stand by them forever, because social media now exists and the internet never forgets.
I hope those badges are the first things to show up whenever anyone googles their name.
>>5807115
"Shadow Hills" is a scary name for a school.
>>5807115
Fuck the human race senpai
>>5807350
Freedom of speech doesn't apply in schools. I'm pretty sure if I wore a shirt saying "death to Jews" or something, I'd get in trouble. The punishments for violating school rules do not deprive you of any Constitutional rights, it just means you failed to hold up your end of a contract and must face the consequences.
>>5807115
>See this badge? It means I'm against you.
>That's like your opinion, man.
Is it that hard? I don't think it's good, but it's still freedom of speech and though in a way or form.
>>5808167
The issue is that it's making gay students feel uncomfortable and threatened.
>>5808181
If noone beats up noone, I would not really give a crap as for myself
>>5807115
> Discuss...and see what we can do about it.
You want to come up with a solution to the problem of kids being forced to burn up most of their precious youth in busywork camps? That's a tough one, but yeah, it needs attention.
Weird how the article spends so much time focusing on some silly badges though.
>>5808188
Sure, but they already have issues with bullying, and if the anti-gay badges are encouraging that sort of conflict/tension it's going to prevent the school from functioning properly.
Lmao this is a local high school from my area. gr8 post OP
>>5807115
First, grow up. People will spread their own ideals. Some of these ideals will hurt your feelings
Secondly, leave it up to those in the locale to respond. You aren't the one in direct fire, and external intervention looks bad.
>>5807179
SAVAGE BEATINGS
>>5808707
R U from Palm Springs? GLBT paradise city, where the grass is green and the gay guys are pretty.
>>5807115
BASED
there needs to be an anti-lgbt counter culture movement, hopefully now
>oh no people have different opinions than me how the fuck can we censor/eradicate them as soon as possible
>>5809086
Eradicate implies we want to end their lives, or at least deprive them of the ability to have their opinions. We don't. What we do want is to prevent LGBT people from having a threatening school environment.
>>5809156
The mentally ill belong in institutions, not schools.
>But, Michelle Bachman, ... vice president of the Gay Straight Alliance
lol did a double take, guess they just have the same name idk
>/lgbt/ - "Straight people are so cool, LGBT people are so lame!"
>>5809160
Being LGBT isn't a mental illness.
>>5809182
Objectively wrong.
>>5809189
>the vast majority of scientists who study mental illness are objectively wrong
>>5809173
The person you're thinking of spells her first name with one L and her last name with two N's
>>5809206
>muh meme science
>>5809211
right, but she is notoriously anti-lgbt and co-owns a gay conversion therapy center with her "straight" husband
>>5809226
>science is a meme because it disagrees with my ideology
>>5809236
Objectively correct.
>>5809245
>admitting you don't care about objectivity
>>5809251
Don't you understand, anon?
Studies and scientists who disagree with them = shills
Studies and scientists who agree with them = oppressed truth tellers
>>5809251
>my opinions are based around completely arbitrary "science" that is merely just popular opinion at that time
You'll grow up eventually.
>>5807115
Well I go to college out here in southern california and they closed the lgbt club this year because her car was torched in the parking lot. Shit is bad out here for lgbt and no one sees it.
>>5809404
>the results of scientific research are just as arbitrarily and meaningless as something some random person made up online
>>5807115
update:
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/education/2016/02/29/students-asked-remove-anti-gay-badges-now/81118840/
>>5807115
You do nothing. It isn't any worse than those girls that were recently wearing shirts saying they're lesbian.
>>5809461
But what if I don't want to do what you tell me to do?
>>5808065
Public schools are federal, so the constitution very much so applies. It however does not apply in private schools. But this school in question is not a private school.
>>5809469
I can't stop you m8.
As long as you don't use force you can do what you want.
>>5809477
What if I don't want to do what you told me to do that time either, m8?
>>5809470
I went to a public school, and there were rules on what you could say. You couldn't say heil hitler or death to faggots without facing consequences. Getting sent to the principal's office isn't a violation of your constitutional rights, and isn't equivalent to a legal sentence. Or do you think every student who's suspended has to go through a fair trial first?
off topic but damn that is a horrible website design
>>5809518
I think as long as school remains compulsory they must uphold the constitution. So yes, a trial with a school judge would only be fair.
>>5809441
>social science
the end is nigh homos. the day of the rope is coming and sissy boi bottoms will be the first to hang.
>>5807162
yeah, we could perhaps make these badges look like stars and make them wear them on their sleeves. Maybe we could also tattoo a number on their wrist so they can be easily identified personally.
>>5809601
First Amendment:
>Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
School regulations are not laws passed by congress. Furthermore, it's my understanding that public schools being able to impose reasonable punishments for bad behavior is not something that specifically has to be authorized by law. Public schools are not legal institutions, and while they may not impose cruel and unusual punishments, it is not because of the Constitution, but because it would be classified as abuse, assault, or harassment. Additionally, the consequences for bad behavior do not in any way prevent you from being able to protest and petition the government if you feel that the schools are being run unfairly.
>>5809674
School regulations are rules the limit freedoms.
>>5809601
>>5809674
(cont)
Fifth Amendment:
>[N]or shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
(the Fifteenth Amendment uses similar language to indicate individual states are subject to the same restriction)
Getting suspended from school is not depriving you of life or property. And while it could be argued that sending you to the principle's office is depriving you of liberty, that really only applies if you use a very broad and literal definition of liberty. And that kind of definition would seem to make most laws unconstitutional, unless one accepts that due process AFTER the act of deprivation is not in violation of the Constitution. Because for example, a cop can pull you over for driving 80 mph in a 40 mph zone (thus depriving you of the liberty to drive 80 mph), without needing to go through any sort of legal steps like convicting you in court, obtaining a warrant, etc.
Fundamentally, due process is about rights. If no rights are violated, then there is no need to due process. And under our current legal system, "not getting sent to the principle's office" and "driving 80 miles an hour" are not de facto rights. One could argue from a libertarian perspective that such rights should exist, however that would also mean that mandatory schooling and other things are also violations of our rights. That's the problem we run into with simplistic interpretations of libertarian principles. Some rights we don't have (like the right to drive 80 mph, the right to not attend school), are rights which we likely would have under pure libertarianism, but not having these rights is considered to be for the greater good. For example, pure libertarian might say we have a right to drive as fast as we want, because it is a non-aggressive act, although it still puts innocent lives at risk. And that's why the notion of "everything is a right unless it infringes on other's rights" cannot be easily put into practice.
>>5809685
And where in the Constitution does it say freedoms cannot be limited? Freedoms is a pretty broad concept. The notion of mandatory schooling itself is a limitation of freedom. As is the restriction that you can't bring guns into a courthouse. Or that you can't go to a bar if you're underage. Or that you must stop at traffic lights. Are all of these things unconstitutional?
FREEDOM OF SPEECH MOTHERFUCKERS YES
A M E R I C A
M
E
R
I
C
A
>>5809702
You should be allowed to take guns in court houses. You can go in bars, just not drink. And roads should be privatized.
>>5809717
>You can go in bars, just not drink.
Saying you can't drink is still a restriction of freedom. The Constitution does not say that any and all restrictions of freedom were disallowed. Remember, the Constitution originally condoned slavery, which is a blatant restriction of freedom. And the right to due process only protects basic rights from being taken away from you - it does not mean all government facilities have to unconditionally let you do whatever you want there.
>>5809734
Slavery breaks the nap, so that doesn't count.
>>5807115
better ban the badges so we don't know who to avoid ;^)
best to force people to hide their politically incorrect opinions ;^)
>>5809742
Does the Constitution actually say anything along the lines of "it's a right as long as it doesn't violate the NAP"?
And by your logic, wouldn't putting people in jail AWAITING trial be unconstitutional/anti-libertarian? They're being deprived of their liberty but no trial has yet occurred. What are you supposed to do with violent criminals not yet convicted then?
>>5810792
I don't believe in the police.
>>5808065
It literally says in the article that SCOTUS already determined freedom of speech does apply in public schools. The issue here is is this hate speech or incitement to hate crimes or not not whether or not they have the right to wear these because they 100% constitutionally have the right to wear these.
>>5809156
>or at least deprive them of the ability to have their opinions
You do want to deprive them of their opinions as long as those opinions are different than the opinions of the majority. That's the entire point and it's pretty atrocious development for free speech and democracy in America.
And I say that as a tranny, the objectively most persecuted group within the LGBT.
>>5811112
Without police, everyone would have to be fully responsible for preventing crime against themselves, and that's inefficient - it doesn't allow people to focus specialization in other skills. Whereas if the police dedicate themselves to fighting crime, others can dedicate themselves to other skills and create a more productive society overall.
>>5811128
Yes, but "freedom of speech" as a legal policy does NOT mean you can say whatever you want and face no academic consequences. When did the SCOTUS decide this? When I graduated high school in 2012, they still had a policy that they could send students home for dress code violations. And yes, this was a public school.
>>5811132
Majority or not is irrelevant, schools are responsible for creating an environment in which students do not feel threatened. If gay kids were harassing a kid with neo-nazi views, I'd still say the same thing. You're allowed to have whatever beliefs you want, but if expressing them is preventing other students from learning, then doing so should be against the rules. The school is not obligated to make itself a platform for every inane ideology that comes along.
Why am I not surprised that people are actually very intolerant and show that intolerance in public?
Why am I surprised that people still believe acceptance is a real thing?
>>5812804
>If gay kids were harassing a kid with neo-nazi views,
Isn't this exactly what's happening, though? The kids wearing anti-LGBT patches did fuck all besides wear anti-LGBT patches .
>creating a friendly environment
For the students the majority likes, yes. Wouldn't this ENTIRE thing be quite literally nothing but a hostile environment for the anti-LGBT students? Why is their security/comfort not cared about?
Again, I'm a giant faggot and I fully believe they have the right to wear that shit all they want. If they start attacking or bullying LGBT students that's different but that's AFTER they've attacked or bullied a student. You don't punish people for the crime they haven't committed. That's my main gripe with this entire thing - this is massive violation of their civil and legal rights.
>>5812912
>For the students the majority likes, yes. Wouldn't this ENTIRE thing be quite literally nothing but a hostile environment for the anti-LGBT students? Why is their security/comfort not cared about?
The school would also be entitled to demand that students not wear pro-lgbt patches either.
>>5812912
>If they start attacking or bullying LGBT students that's different but that's AFTER they've attacked or bullied a student.
Now I agree with you but this is no if, it's a when.
Like seriously it's unavoidable.
>>5812912
>For the students the majority likes, yes. Wouldn't this ENTIRE thing be quite literally nothing but a hostile environment for the anti-LGBT students? Why is their security/comfort not cared about?
The anti-LGBT patches send the message that LGBT people shouldn't have rights. Pro-LGBT patches would only be indicating that LGBT people should have rights like anyone else, they're not associated with a message of taking anyone's rights away. They're not really comparable.
I notice how gay people tend to be offended easily in reality. Readily calling cops or making others pay dearly. Makes me think they are spiteful people that can't talk shit through rather than "happy" people. Personally I think having a label saying they anti-gay is pretty dumb as people get hostile easy as shown by op. It is no wonder Trump is so successful. I suppose there are a lot of people tired of getting oppressed.
>>5813015
What is there to talk about with these people? They think gay people shouldn't have equal rights. What common ground is there to even begin a discussion from?
>>5812937
Okay, and? Frankly that shit is cringy and fake as hell. From personal experience most of the worst bullies/assholes come from people that get really deep in the LGBT movement.
Essentially we don't have to worry about the bullies outside the movement because all the worst ones are already in it.
>>5812956
Okay then, punish them if/when they assault an LGBT student. Don't go all Minority Report and try punishing them BEFORE they've committed a crime.
I don't give a fuck about these people but, as cliche as it is, the old saying "first they came for... " is actually true. If we violate constitutional rights now to take out people we don't agree with what's stopping us from being thrown under the bus later?
It's the same reason I'm against all the insane new anti-rapist proposals that all end up being "guilty until proven guilty". Sure now they'd be used to convict rapists based on no evidence, which is horrible in and of itself, but what about in the future?
>>5812967
You're still coddling one group and creating a hostile environment for the other (hostile environment supported by the teachers, judging by the article) that still amounts to "shut up and agree with us or we'll ruin your life".
>>5813070
You do realize that "from personal experience" is utterly meaningless in any kind of serious debate?
>>5813070
>You're still coddling one group and creating a hostile environment for the other (hostile environment supported by the teachers, judging by the article) that still amounts to "shut up and agree with us or we'll ruin your life".
Yes, but hostility in the sense of "boo hoo I'm not allowed to express hate towards people" is not equivalent to hostility in the sense of "i'm surrounded by people who think I don't deserve rights".
If you have the right to hate, then you have the right to be stupid.
>>5807173
thats the edgiest amerifat post ive read all month
>>5807115
>Discuss...and see what we can do about it.
give people black eyes for wearing them.
>thats about it.
>Straight or Gay People actually care
I mean. Being gay is fucked up
But imagine, that fresh generation of gay whores coming out the oven
Lets corrupt the youth!
