Something that a teacher advertises publicly is the public's business.
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example (at the least). With the 90s gangster rap, it depends on the content. With the guns, it depends on what kind of related material they were publically releasing.
Some of your other examples are too petulant and silly to respond to.
What people do in their free time is their own choice.
Let me put this in the simplest way possible. The second you focus your energies on defending teachers' rights to do online porn, you have ceded the entirety of discourse surrounding the Education System to the conservative right at best, and the fascist right at worst. You will be exiled to the fringes of society by the parents themselves.
Well we should think of the children, its important socially.
You've said elsewhere that you'd be concerned if a teacher were a facist - would you not mind if they were teaching to the cirriculum at school, but in their time off work publically promoting fascist material? I don't mean to conflate the two subjects (fascism and pornography), but just point out that we don't (and shouldn't) judge teachers just on what they do at school. Of course, then it becomes a question of what is and isn't acceptable for a teacher to be doing in public outside of work, and I don't think its moral panic to say that pornography is not acceptable - sex education and teaching about relationships is very sensitive as a subject for people because as I've said there's a great potential for harm and exploitation.
We should assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise of course. You don't think your pepsi coke thing was silly?
How do you expect to get anything done if you call other people on your small leftist forum chuds because you disagree on one thing despite agreeing on 99 others? You know there will be plenty of other leftists who disagree with you on this or that, right?
"I disagree with this person therefore they're a chud therefore I can be as big of an ass as I want to them" is a shitty way to interact with people here. "It's just a website" is a bad excuse because it makes interactions on that website shittier and how we act online bleeds through to the real world.
The only person I saw using "debate tricks" was you, and you can't say on one hand this is a website so you can be an ass to whoever you want, then on the other hand complain about stuff like that.
The specific thing I disagree with the person on, and the way in which they behave, makes me consider them a chud
A chud is a full-blown reactionary, not another leftist who agrees with you on 99 things and disagrees with you on one point you characterize as reactionary (and note that there is far from a consensus on that in this thread).
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example
If you think Lolita was condoning its subject matter then you completely misunderstood the entire message of the book. This is why we need media literacy.
Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don't need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.
If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher's school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the 'poverty porn' genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I'd do a lot more than sack such an author.
If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it
Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you've applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called 'controversial,' is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I'm not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
Not anything, but certainly something about child abuse, when, and I can't emphasise this enough, you're responsible for teaching children is certainly an auto disqualification.
'Fantasy' implies it was written as an erotic novel, rather than a critique of child abuse. The narrative makes it very clear that the protagonist is a monster and that everything he did was horrible. For the last time please read the book and educate yourself about it before passing judgement, because banning a book you haven't read but you think is pornographic despite everyone telling you otherwise makes you indistinguishable from the GOP freaks who are banning every book from school libraries that so much as acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
First of all, I didn't say Lolita is indistinguishable from novels with LGBTQ+ themes, I said that you are indistinguishable from GOP book banners.
child abuse material
Oh my god shut the fuck up already. You have been told multiple times, in no uncertain terms, that Lolita is not a pornographic novel. Until you read the book, nothing you say matters, because you have made it perfectly clear you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, and despite every attempt by other people in this thread who have tried to politely correct you on this misunderstanding, you continue to repeat the same ignorant takes on this novel over and over again. You are, again, indistinguishable from a reactionary who makes up their mind on something and refuses to budge despite all overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
@SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml told you in another part of this thread that "the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn't be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms" so I'll even share that passage with you:
I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but is not conducive to attractiveness. He is ponderously capricious. Many of his casual opinions on the people and scenery of this country are ludicrous. A desperate honesty that throbs through his confession does not absolve him from sins of diabolical cunning. He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the book while abhorring its author!
Shut the fuck up and read the fucking book. Seriously, I don't want to read another comment from you about this book until you have read it, because you have made it entirely clear you have zero clue what the actual novel is about.
Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. Best of luck, hope you learn something today.
I don't take fiction at face value, and I don't uncritically trust what authors write (I think that would be very naive), especially about topics they know will be subject to censorship.
No no, of course not you would never do that! Instead you just don't read the things you complain about while making assumptions and refusing to shut the fuck up and check to see if you were even right first!
Something that a teacher advertises publicly is the public's business.
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example (at the least). With the 90s gangster rap, it depends on the content. With the guns, it depends on what kind of related material they were publically releasing.
Some of your other examples are too petulant and silly to respond to.
deleted by creator
Let me put this in the simplest way possible. The second you focus your energies on defending teachers' rights to do online porn, you have ceded the entirety of discourse surrounding the Education System to the conservative right at best, and the fascist right at worst. You will be exiled to the fringes of society by the parents themselves.
Sometimes it's not about Libertad, Carajo.
deleted by creator
Was that what I wrote?
deleted by creator
Picking your battles is important. A teacher doing OnlyFans is a great example of something that's defensible but very much not a hill to die on.
deleted by creator
Well we should think of the children, its important socially.
You've said elsewhere that you'd be concerned if a teacher were a facist - would you not mind if they were teaching to the cirriculum at school, but in their time off work publically promoting fascist material? I don't mean to conflate the two subjects (fascism and pornography), but just point out that we don't (and shouldn't) judge teachers just on what they do at school. Of course, then it becomes a question of what is and isn't acceptable for a teacher to be doing in public outside of work, and I don't think its moral panic to say that pornography is not acceptable - sex education and teaching about relationships is very sensitive as a subject for people because as I've said there's a great potential for harm and exploitation.
We should assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise of course. You don't think your pepsi coke thing was silly?
This is some real
shit
deleted by creator
We shouldn't interact with each other the way we interact with chuds.
deleted by creator
How do you expect to get anything done if you call other people on your small leftist forum chuds because you disagree on one thing despite agreeing on 99 others? You know there will be plenty of other leftists who disagree with you on this or that, right?
deleted by creator
"I disagree with this person therefore they're a chud therefore I can be as big of an ass as I want to them" is a shitty way to interact with people here. "It's just a website" is a bad excuse because it makes interactions on that website shittier and how we act online bleeds through to the real world.
The only person I saw using "debate tricks" was you, and you can't say on one hand this is a website so you can be an ass to whoever you want, then on the other hand complain about stuff like that.
deleted by creator
A chud is a full-blown reactionary, not another leftist who agrees with you on 99 things and disagrees with you on one point you characterize as reactionary (and note that there is far from a consensus on that in this thread).
if they think sex workers are a danger to children they are a reactionary
deleted by creator
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
If you think Lolita was condoning its subject matter then you completely misunderstood the entire message of the book. This is why we need media literacy.
Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don't need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.
If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher's school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the 'poverty porn' genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I'd do a lot more than sack such an author.
Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you've applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.
Removed by mod
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called 'controversial,' is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I'm not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
I am absolutely fucking disgusted with this shit
Not anything, but certainly something about child abuse, when, and I can't emphasise this enough, you're responsible for teaching children is certainly an auto disqualification.
So if someone says "child abuse is bad" they should be banned from teaching, because they said something about child abuse, do I have this right?
Removed by mod
Once again, Lolita is not a fantasy about child abuse. Please read the book.
Removed by mod
'Fantasy' implies it was written as an erotic novel, rather than a critique of child abuse. The narrative makes it very clear that the protagonist is a monster and that everything he did was horrible. For the last time please read the book and educate yourself about it before passing judgement, because banning a book you haven't read but you think is pornographic despite everyone telling you otherwise makes you indistinguishable from the GOP freaks who are banning every book from school libraries that so much as acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
Removed by mod
First of all, I didn't say Lolita is indistinguishable from novels with LGBTQ+ themes, I said that you are indistinguishable from GOP book banners.
Oh my god shut the fuck up already. You have been told multiple times, in no uncertain terms, that Lolita is not a pornographic novel. Until you read the book, nothing you say matters, because you have made it perfectly clear you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, and despite every attempt by other people in this thread who have tried to politely correct you on this misunderstanding, you continue to repeat the same ignorant takes on this novel over and over again. You are, again, indistinguishable from a reactionary who makes up their mind on something and refuses to budge despite all overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
@SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml told you in another part of this thread that "the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn't be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms" so I'll even share that passage with you:
Shut the fuck up and read the fucking book. Seriously, I don't want to read another comment from you about this book until you have read it, because you have made it entirely clear you have zero clue what the actual novel is about.
Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. Best of luck, hope you learn something today.
Removed by mod
No no, of course not you would never do that! Instead you just don't read the things you complain about while making assumptions and refusing to shut the fuck up and check to see if you were even right first!
Get the fuck off our website
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOMMODATED SHUT THE FUCK UP
You didn't read it, did you?
And I'm not saying it's a good book because it isn't.