"There are only two opinions on this sign: Everyone is welcome here, or not everyone is welcome here,” argues Sarah Inama, a sixth-grade history teacher.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I’m saying that taking down the signs is being “overly sheltering” in the sense that it’s showing kids that you can just make anything you don’t like go away. This is an argument to keep the signs in order to help the kids learn to deal with exposure to the world, regardless of whether they like what they see. I honestly have a hard time seeing how OP’s comment can be interpreted differently?
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.
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.
Maybe they should grow thick enough skin to not get offended at this sign.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Okay then.
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.
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.
It’s funny how we interpreted OP’s comment completely oppositely. I interpreted it as
If I understand correctly, you interpret OP as arguing that the signs should be removed?
I’m saying that taking down the signs is being “overly sheltering” in the sense that it’s showing kids that you can just make anything you don’t like go away. This is an argument to keep the signs in order to help the kids learn to deal with exposure to the world, regardless of whether they like what they see. I honestly have a hard time seeing how OP’s comment can be interpreted differently?