iluvoursolskjær
New Member
This issue is big
You're right it is really weird. That not a single news outlet has shown the cartoon that is causing such debates and protests is absolutely ridiculous.
You're hilarious
This issue is big
You're right it is really weird. That not a single news outlet has shown the cartoon that is causing such debates and protests is absolutely ridiculous.
This issue is big
You're right it is really weird. That not a single news outlet has shown the cartoon that is causing such debates and protests is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't think you've followed the conversation. It appears to be that the cartoon wasn't the issue.
The details of what happened are what's missing, yet people have come to conclusions and drawn battle lines.
Community members who have said and written that they won't tolerate violence or threats of violence are not being shown, neither are representatives who are shocked that division is being amplified rather than the calls to come together and have a calm and respectful discussion.
Seems some folk just want to inflame the situation and want the cartoon published by all and sundry, even though it appears it's a resource that been used for a couple of years. Wonder why that is?
You're hilarious
I think someone without any background should be able to watch the news or look at the media sites and see what the fuss it about and make their own conclusions.
But I can't. Wonder why that is?
Oh 100%, I can tell from how people write what they are about because writing takes thought and consideration to a certain degree which reflects qualities; there are super good people here. But why are the dumb minority always the loudest all the time. It's unfortunate.
Thanks!
The detail is there. You could google it. After all how many prophet with a bomb for turban pics are there?
So you have a description, a link to the source wonder why you'd want every news source to print (reprint in some cases) the picture?
Generally folk would look into something to reach an informed conclusion, in this case the issue seems to be the teacher not the source material. So I've spent time researching and come to this conclusion.
Maybe I should have sat back, moaned and bitched that the information wasn't collated and dropped into my lap so I could be faux outraged
Way of the world.
Interestingly there was a teacher, last year, in Belgium suspended for showing a caricature of the Prophet SAW in class after the Paty killing.
The president of the liberal MR party waded in with an I hope this isn't true...freedom of expression is non negotiable comment.
The mayor of the city had been quite clear the suspension wasn't due to showing a caricature of Muhammad but the fact that the picture had genitals showing and the class was under 10 years old.
She told the president that under no circumstances should you be showing children under 10 pictures of genitals. Proceedings were started against the teacher.
You still got people hearing the words Muhammad and cartoon going on about "yeah but freedom of speech" and "right to offend".
I should be able to watch the news or read a paper (also online) and see the 'news' as it is. The fact not a single outlet will show you what the fuss is about makes it a big issue IMO.
To be clear, I don't like the cartoons...I think they're pretty awful and (yes I know) I have Muslim friends but I still except news outlets to present the news.
What makes it worse is how genuine people concerned about civil liberties say nothing when bigots hijack the conversations. Hypocrites. What are your values worth when it only matters when affecting your own group.
Nothing for humanity.
What are you talking about?
And I am asking what are you talking about when you say “not included in the curriculum”..?I am saying, I will ignore some stuff you said there but ask you this:
If something is meant to be taught, why is it not included in the curriculum?
Still a rather evocative description of someone, no doubt.Late 20's. My bad I did write 20 year old but was wrong. The Daily mail is the paper I was referring to and they say late 20's not 20 year old
I disagree - it's backed up with stats. Most antisemitic attacks in the West has been by right winged loons. Not denying that there is antagonistic rhetoric from Muslims and Jews on these shores (mainly due to the political issues from Palestine & Israel), but in terms of that rhetoric leading into a physical, violent attack? It's a rarity.(Picking this up from earlier today.)
This is true for the last couple of years, although before that Jews were indeed a prime target of Jihadist terror. I don't think the lack of larger attacks after the mid-2010s means that Islamist antisemitism channeling into practical terror is called off for good, but rather that it's pushed back into a state of latency by several internal and external factors. (Like the defeat of al-Qaeda, the general focus on sectarian wars, improved surveillance and security...)
Missed this post from you earlier. Totally believe now that the initial quote from you did not show how you actually feel. Appreciate the clarification.They absolutely were.
It was an absolute stupid mistake on my part how I wrote that.
My point wasn't related to the Nazis but that my teachers didnt show it to offend or ridicule us as students.
If you follow the conversation I was having with the poster hopefully you will see it wasn't meant the way it came across
Isn’t the ability to teach young people more about their potential phobias & -isms & to have them learn from them as a return, a positive?Somebody who makes a caricature about a known and obvious sensitive topic (prophet, Holocaust, etc.) is completely irresponsible.
The balance between risk (have some communities upset, protests) and return (make some intellectual hipsters smile) is ridiculous.
I disagree - it's backed up with stats. Most antisemitic attacks in the West has been by right winged loons. Not denying that there is antagonistic rhetoric from Muslims and Jews on these shores (mainly due to the political issues from Palestine & Israel), but in terms of that rhetoric leading into a physical, violent attack? It's a rarity.
Not directed at you in particular (it’s an issue running through a lot of CE threads), but generally speaking it would be useful if posters could provide links to sources when referencing something to support their case.
Sorry, but to me this shows near total ignorance of a serious problem.I disagree - it's backed up with stats. Most antisemitic attacks in the West has been by right winged loons. Not denying that there is antagonistic rhetoric from Muslims and Jews on these shores (mainly due to the political issues from Palestine & Israel), but in terms of that rhetoric leading into a physical, violent attack? It's a rarity.
i think you are confusing two groups of people
writers and drawers are different people to teachers
writers and drawers should not have to be careful and cautious at all whatever the subject, be it drawing of mohamed, sex, nazis, morality in sport or whatever.
i honestly wish i had used a different historical example as you now seemed fixated on nazis
teachers should be careful to not damage their pupils, but should be free to discuss any subject. they should be able to bring in any legal reference to any subject. most aspects of most subjects will offend someone. its part of education. if its not part of education, then its not education, its indoctrination
i also didnt bring in carefullness, another poster (Ecstatic) did, i merely responded
Isn’t the ability to teach young people more about their potential phobias & -isms & to have them learn from them as a return, a positive?
Teaching students about the actualities of life in which they will be fully immersed in the near future is essential.
We see things quite similarly, it seems, & appreciate the reply. Just appears we differ on the value of showing blasphemy to better understand blasphemy & the adverse pressure that can be applied on educators.There is an infinite number of ways to teach a subject or convey a message in terms of writing and teaching.
I am just aware of the fact that people are not always receptive to hear something they don't want to hear, hence the necessity of having a communication adapted to the context and situation.
Audiences are generally predictable and communicators should not be self-centered: they have to be aware of the impact they may have on some people.
A good communicator will
(1) build a constructive dialogue with audiences, and
(2) find a way to avoid creating ennemies (complaining parents, hate on social media, etc.) while doing the job he is supposed to do.
Sure - I'll PM you a couple of articles.Not directed at you in particular (it’s an issue running through a lot of CE threads), but generally speaking it would be useful if posters could provide links to sources when referencing something to support their case (I’m guilty of forgetting to do it often enough myself)
We need to make a distinction between what is, as you term, everyday harassment and hate speech and actual physical violent attacks. My posts have been centred on actual violence and action against Jewish communities. Of course, both instances are abhorrent but one is clearly worse than the other.Sorry, but to me this shows near total ignorance of a serious problem.
I'm always at a loss at this point, because I could point to incidents and reports about everyday harrassment and violence, but I've rarely seen this go well. As I said to another poster, I have no interest in turning it into a contest if right wing or Islamist antisemitism is worse. Nothing good comes out of that. Both issues are real and dangerous, and while Nazis have taken the lead in deadly terrorism in recent years, a few years back it was reversed. Trends, regional distinctions, and other details can always be discussed, but the minimum requirement for a discussion would be that none of these issues is declared a myth.
In the end, this thread is about a different topic, and I've said my bit. If nothing extraordinary happens, I'll leave it at that.
People opting their child out / a child choosing to opt out of an assignment or lecture is common practice here and part of their educational rights.I read that he warned the Muslim students that they might want to leave the classroom before he showed the cartoons - this isn't acceptable either.
While I won't push the topic further, I have one correction to make: I said "everyday harassment and violence", not "everyday harassment and hate speech". As in attacks on the street for wearing a kippa or Star of David, and similar things.We need to make a distinction between what is, as you term, everyday harassment and hate speech and actual physical violent attacks. My posts have been centred on actual violence and action against Jewish communities. Of course, both instances are abhorrent but one is clearly worse than the other.
Agree that this isn't the thread to discuss this topic, but you're misconstruing my post.
I understand that concept, but I think this is a bit different. He planned a lesson to include the cartoons, which meant that some kids had to be offered the chance to leave the room. He could have delivered the same lesson without showing them, and no-one would have had to leave the room.People opting their child out / a child choosing to opt out of an assignment or lecture is common practice here and part of their educational rights.
I understand that concept, but I think this is a bit different. He planned a lesson to include the cartoons, which meant that some kids had to be offered the chance to leave the room. He could have delivered the same lesson without showing them, and no-one would have had to leave the room.
And again... I’ve had to offer the same consideration to students every time I’ve shown something violent or controversial. I’m not going to not show those things as they are pertinent to the curriculum I am teaching and those students need to learn how to approach those topics in a civil way in a democratic society.I understand that concept, but I think this is a bit different. He planned a lesson to include the cartoons, which meant that some kids had to be offered the chance to leave the room. He could have delivered the same lesson without showing them, and no-one would have had to leave the room.
And I am asking what are you talking about when you say “not included in the curriculum”..?
What isn’t included?
And again... I’ve had to offer the same consideration to students every time I’ve shown something violent or controversial. I’m not going to not show those things as they are pertinent to the curriculum I am teaching and those students need to learn how to approach those topics in a civil way in a democratic society.
If the teacher acted unprofessionally while showing that content, fine, he gets what he gets and I support that. But the use of controversial material in class shouldn’t be discouraged just because it is controversial.
I literally said it is part of the curriculum. But hey, I guess you know more about the job than me.Whatever you teach, is it included in the curriculum? Is showing these cartoons included in the curriculum? You would have to be intellectually dishonest to admit these cartoons were or that children probably expected it.
You don't need to reply to me btw, I think your "stance" is pretty clear.
Hey look, the guy going off half cocked has missed the whole part where I pointed out to @Penna that there are opt out rights.@Carolina Red the same guy who was leading the line with respect for immigrants crossing the southern border and how they are treated would have absolutely no regard for a, new immigrant, 15 year old from Yemen, who in his second school year at America is now looking at what he has learned to be the most offensive images possible. Why? Because dang it he better learn to discuss and if he can't discuss that's his problem not mine! How inclusive.
I literally said it is part of the curriculum. But hey, I guess you know more about the job than me.
Hey look, the guy going off half cocked has missed the whole part where I pointed out to @Penna that there are opt out rights.
I have literally served on district curriculum writing committees. But again, what do I know?Inclusion of these cartoons are not. High school is public knowledge btw so it's not some secret vault you have access to.
The AP World curriculum is created by the College Board and is offered world wide. You could always take it up with them that depictions of Muhammad are literally part of Persian art.Ah what a solution. That kid no longer deserves to learn about AP history because champion atheist carolina red cannot possibly teach a class without offending him.