Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
I blame social media - I see too many people self-filter news and opinions, and it leads to a bunker mentality, which just reinforces division, which provides justification for the self-filtering and de-friending those with differing views, entrenching the bunker mentality. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
It is a tough balance. It helps if people can leave anger out of it on both sides and if society can have open discussions about what is and is not offensive and what was the intent of the comment or act in question.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
It is a tough balance. It helps if people can leave anger out of it on both sides and if society can have open discussions about what is and is not offensive and what was the intent of the comment or act in question.
This is not a recent thing though. This is how most wars have started throughout history. Because anger can not be left out of it and there isn’t discussion about intent. There’s just shoot first ask questions later. Well, this and one group of people can’t stand the fact that another doesn’t believe the same things they do so much that they want to kill them for it.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
It is a tough balance. It helps if people can leave anger out of it on both sides and if society can have open discussions about what is and is not offensive and what was the intent of the comment or act in question.
This is not a recent thing though. This is how most wars have started throughout history. Because anger can not be left out of it and there isn’t discussion about intent. There’s just shoot first ask questions later. Well, this and one group of people can’t stand the fact that another doesn’t believe the same things they do so much that they want to kill them for it.
Intent can certainly be a problem as leaders have to balance perceptions within their group and perceptions of them outside their group. What is the intent of the actions and what is the intent of the threats. This is where diplomacy is critical such as in the Cuban Missle Crisis when JFK had to determine what the USSR's intent was in putting nuclear missles in Cuba and how serious the threat was. Turned out Kruschev's intent was to counter American nuclear missles placed in Turkey and that by Kruschev and JFK reaching out they were able to come to an understanding and remove missles from both places and prevent WW3. Or dealing with dictators that have to look tough for their people and have to make threats to look tough but do not actually intend to carry out those threats. But I think most wars have been started by greed and the rationalization for that greed by depicting the other group as less than human or evil and saying there is a divine reason for the war.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
It is a tough balance. It helps if people can leave anger out of it on both sides and if society can have open discussions about what is and is not offensive and what was the intent of the comment or act in question.
This is not a recent thing though. This is how most wars have started throughout history. Because anger can not be left out of it and there isn’t discussion about intent. There’s just shoot first ask questions later. Well, this and one group of people can’t stand the fact that another doesn’t believe the same things they do so much that they want to kill them for it.
Intent can certainly be a problem as leaders have to balance perceptions within their group and perceptions of them outside their group. What is the intent of the actions and what is the intent of the threats. This is where diplomacy is critical such as in the Cuban Missle Crisis when JFK had to determine what the USSR's intent was in putting nuclear missles in Cuba and how serious the threat was. Turned out Kruschev's intent was to counter American nuclear missles placed in Turkey and that by Kruschev and JFK reaching out they were able to come to an understanding and remove missles from both places and prevent WW3. Or dealing with dictators that have to look tough for their people and have to make threats to look tough but do not actually intend to carry out those threats. But I think most wars have been started by greed and the rationalization for that greed by depicting the other group as less than human or evil and saying there is a divine reason for the war.
Oh yes to your next to last statement. This is why propaganda can be so important. And I bow to your Cuban Missile Crisis example. It reminds me of the crisis between Vulcan and Andoria over Weyton (spelling could be wrong). T’Pol explained it to Archer as it being similar to Klingons putting a military outpost on the moon.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
It is a tough balance. It helps if people can leave anger out of it on both sides and if society can have open discussions about what is and is not offensive and what was the intent of the comment or act in question.
This is not a recent thing though. This is how most wars have started throughout history. Because anger can not be left out of it and there isn’t discussion about intent. There’s just shoot first ask questions later. Well, this and one group of people can’t stand the fact that another doesn’t believe the same things they do so much that they want to kill them for it.
Intent can certainly be a problem as leaders have to balance perceptions within their group and perceptions of them outside their group. What is the intent of the actions and what is the intent of the threats. This is where diplomacy is critical such as in the Cuban Missle Crisis when JFK had to determine what the USSR's intent was in putting nuclear missles in Cuba and how serious the threat was. Turned out Kruschev's intent was to counter American nuclear missles placed in Turkey and that by Kruschev and JFK reaching out they were able to come to an understanding and remove missles from both places and prevent WW3. Or dealing with dictators that have to look tough for their people and have to make threats to look tough but do not actually intend to carry out those threats. But I think most wars have been started by greed and the rationalization for that greed by depicting the other group as less than human or evil and saying there is a divine reason for the war.
Oh yes to your next to last statement. This is why propaganda can be so important. And I bow to your Cuban Missile Crisis example. It reminds me of the crisis between Vulcan and Andoria over Weyton (spelling could be wrong). T’Pol explained it to Archer as it being similar to Klingons putting a military outpost on the moon.
I would say propaganda is more evil and destructive than important unless you mean it is something important to focus on and eradicate. Propaganda creates a false reality, a denial of facts and can cause people to justify great evils and massacres while at the same time convincing people those evils and massacres are not happening and then afterwards convince people the evils and massacres never happened. Leading up to and during wars propaganda is also used to depict the enemy as less than human.
As to the Enterprise ep, many of the eps pulled inspiration from actual events and wars. It was not just Law and Order that could pull stories "Ripped From the Headlines."
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It would be fun to see the DISCO Janeway card, not because it would annoy others, but because it has become something of a minor meme from when there were loads of Janeways released in a relatively short period of time.
Yes, some players would have a big strop about it, but you don't make decisions based on the fact some people think the world owes their sense of umbrage some form of validation over some pixels.
Your first paragraph is the most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long time
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
It is a tough balance. It helps if people can leave anger out of it on both sides and if society can have open discussions about what is and is not offensive and what was the intent of the comment or act in question.
This is not a recent thing though. This is how most wars have started throughout history. Because anger can not be left out of it and there isn’t discussion about intent. There’s just shoot first ask questions later. Well, this and one group of people can’t stand the fact that another doesn’t believe the same things they do so much that they want to kill them for it.
Intent can certainly be a problem as leaders have to balance perceptions within their group and perceptions of them outside their group. What is the intent of the actions and what is the intent of the threats. This is where diplomacy is critical such as in the Cuban Missle Crisis when JFK had to determine what the USSR's intent was in putting nuclear missles in Cuba and how serious the threat was. Turned out Kruschev's intent was to counter American nuclear missles placed in Turkey and that by Kruschev and JFK reaching out they were able to come to an understanding and remove missles from both places and prevent WW3. Or dealing with dictators that have to look tough for their people and have to make threats to look tough but do not actually intend to carry out those threats. But I think most wars have been started by greed and the rationalization for that greed by depicting the other group as less than human or evil and saying there is a divine reason for the war.
Oh yes to your next to last statement. This is why propaganda can be so important. And I bow to your Cuban Missile Crisis example. It reminds me of the crisis between Vulcan and Andoria over Weyton (spelling could be wrong). T’Pol explained it to Archer as it being similar to Klingons putting a military outpost on the moon.
I would say propaganda is more evil and destructive than important unless you mean it is something important to focus on and eradicate. Propaganda creates a false reality, a denial of facts and can cause people to justify great evils and massacres while at the same time convincing people those evils and massacres are not happening and then afterwards convince people the evils and massacres never happened. Leading up to and during wars propaganda is also used to depict the enemy as less than human.
As to the Enterprise ep, many of the eps pulled inspiration from actual events and wars. It was not just Law and Order that could pull stories "Ripped From the Headlines."
Perhaps important wasn’t the correct word but my point was that propaganda has won and lost wars.
Why would you wish for something that is sure to annoy many of your fellow players? Why would DB want to annoy many in its player base unnecessarily? It is needless trolling. You will have to justify the benefits over the costs, because right now it looks like you want something *because* you want to make others mad.
Can we bin this "I'm offended therefore you're trolling" view? It's passive-aggressive and dishonest.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest. I am not offended personally. When I entered this argument I just thought 'who would want this card, it's insane and will just annoy people'. I was totally off on who and why people would want the card. If people want the card because they like the art or the concept then I guess the benefits outweigh potential harms.
I am not super excited about the card myself, but if it's in an event I will grab it and I'll be far more interested in it if it is mechanically good. I am happy that others will like it. I feel exactly the same way about cheesecake seven. I went and got her because she was useful, wasn't really into the card itself. What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
I think the problem was that Thurthorad assumed it had to be offensive (as in intentionally offensive/trolling) and wouldn't let anyone convince them that that wasn't actually the case.
I will not join the discussion about what should or shouldn't be considered offensive or if we should or shouldn't be allowed to (unintentionally, out of habit or proudly) offend others, because I think that it's a complex topic and it's used way to often in divisive, intellectually dishonest and/or self-referential arguments (NOT by the two of you, but in my experience that's where it ends if you try to have a serious conversation on this topic online. Well, in real life too actually).
As for the Discoway issue, when I came up with it on another thread, it was meant mostly as a joke and a response to a player who keeps referencing the "too many Janeways" argument in almost every single thread on this forum. The OP in this thread meant it as an actual suggestion however, and I can see why. It would be funny and it would be some sort of inside joke between DB and the forum community.
There may be some people who would hate it (and I don't think this only applies to those who hate Janeway and/or Disco. The same could go for those who love one or both of the characters, for those who hate non-canon cards and so on). I just think that the vast majority of players would not have any strong feelings about it, no matter to which group they belong. And it would be fun for everyone else who spends time on the forums. That is, if it was a 4* a 3* or a gift.
A lot of people would probably hate it if it was the new Honor Hall legendary or a recurring mega legendary, but I really don't think there's any risk that that may ever happen.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
All the thread should be about is if people think if its a good idea or not, and why. I mean thats why I started it....and to ask DB indirectly via the forum.
Nobody is wrong or right per se about the issue. Let alone lecture people HOW peopke are right or wrong.
Its meant to be a fun thread...
Its Discovery Janeway!! What about Assimilated Stammets???? What do people think there? Clearly a 5 star 3 stat card with out of the world science primary and very high engineering with a weaker command 3rd stat
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
Not going to follow on from this, as I was using it as example as a scenario where you can't avoid giving offence to at least one party, and I rarely debate online anymore as it's just too toxic, plus I'd rather be in a pub watching a band than glued to a screen arguing.
But there is a difference between sexuality and gender, and teaching kids that there are same sex couples and there are people who have changed gender is not the same as teaching them who puts what where in the bedroom. I agree the latter shouldn't be taught to kids, the former is part of the world they live in and IMO should be taught as such, and denying your children that because of your personal biases is a disservice to them.
Both of my parents had a degree of racism and homophobia, but they didn't want their kids to follow suit because they recognised, correctly, it would hinder us in life.
I blame a lot of the anger towards gender issues on Dawkins, his attempts to popularise genetics left everyone thinking DNA was the be-all and end-all, and nothing ever changed once how you were was 'programmed' at conception. Pretty much every anti-trans comment has that view as its origin, despite the fact epigenetics has thoroughly debunked it.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
Not going to follow on from this, as I was using it as example as a scenario where you can't avoid giving offence to at least one party, and I rarely debate online anymore as it's just too toxic, plus I'd rather be in a pub watching a band than glued to a screen arguing.
But there is a difference between sexuality and gender, and teaching kids that there are same sex couples and there are people who have changed gender is not the same as teaching them who puts what where in the bedroom. I agree the latter shouldn't be taught to kids, the former is part of the world they live in and IMO should be taught as such, and denying your children that because of your personal biases is a disservice to them.
Both of my parents had a degree of racism and homophobia, but they didn't want their kids to follow suit because they recognised, correctly, it would hinder us in life.
I blame a lot of the anger towards gender issues on Dawkins, his attempts to popularise genetics left everyone thinking DNA was the be-all and end-all, and nothing ever changed once how you were was 'programmed' at conception. Pretty much every anti-trans comment has that view as its origin, despite the fact epigenetics has thoroughly debunked it.
I also feel this way about the new math. It’s confusing, senseless, and actually deviates from reality
I started the game too late to get the fun out of the Discoway pic before I read this thread.
Given that the majority of players does not read the forum and/or started after the era the joke is pointing at there is few point in such card. Most people would just be confused and not get the idea behind it.
If anything it should be a 1* giveaway for forum members only - with no collection bonus. But thinking of butter Kirk we learned how bad DB is at giving freebies to dedicated groups of users. So... rather no.
Still I really dig the pic - it is georgeous. But the framing would probably ruin it anyway.
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
Very few schools teach about gender. And the few that do do so because lgbtq people are a part of the community and make up a significant percentage. It is an effort to stop hate towards the lgbtq community including some of the kids themselves that were taught to be lgbtq was evil or a sin or were facing unending bullying and were committing suicide. People do not choose. Kids do not choose. Gender identity comes from your mind but the mind does not always match the body. People can be born with a male body but with a mind that says they are female and vice versa. Also, people can be born gay or straight or bisexual etc. Sexuality is a spectrum and some people are on one end and others are more towards the middle by varying amounts. I understand your concern Banjo. You want what is best for your child and you worry for her future as all parents do. I promise you no schools are trying to change your child into something they are not. Or do wrong by your child. To your point that you do not want your child exposed to gender and sexuality but to just be a kid, gender and sexuality are everywhere in the world and on tv every day. Just look at primetime shows where the main characters are trying to sleep with people or alluding to it. Kids see everything. Schools are just trying to teach children about the world. Again though, few schools teach anything that you would find inappropriate and certainly not the amount or extent you have been told they do. Some of the people pushing this hate and fear have an agenda. They want your money or your political support. But if any teaching in a school bothers you you have many different options: you can speak with the teacher or someone at the school to better understand the curriculm being taught and why. You can speak to the school board. You can move your daughter to a school that more aligns with your beliefs. Or you can speak to your daughter and teach her on the subject.
I wouldn't object to a few hundred new 1* crew. Take all the bezar crew that are just too wierd or controversial and make them 1* crew. People will get a tiny bit of honor or they will amuse themselves spending resources leveling crew that amuses them.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
Very few schools teach about gender. And the few that do do so because lgbtq people are a part of the community and make up a significant percentage. It is an effort to stop hate towards the lgbtq community including some of the kids themselves that were taught to be lgbtq was evil or a sin or were facing unending bullying and were committing suicide. People do not choose. Kids do not choose. Gender identity comes from your mind but the mind does not always match the body. People can be born with a male body but with a mind that says they are female and vice versa. Also, people can be born gay or straight or bisexual etc. Sexuality is a spectrum and some people are on one end and others are more towards the middle by varying amounts. I understand your concern Banjo. You want what is best for your child and you worry for her future as all parents do. I promise you no schools are trying to change your child into something they are not. Or do wrong by your child. To your point that you do not want your child exposed to gender and sexuality but to just be a kid, gender and sexuality are everywhere in the world and on tv every day. Just look at primetime shows where the main characters are trying to sleep with people or alluding to it. Kids see everything. Schools are just trying to teach children about the world. Again though, few schools teach anything that you would find inappropriate and certainly not the amount or extent you have been told they do. But if any teaching in a school bothers you you have many different options: you can speak with the teacher or someone at the school to better understand the curriculm being taught and why. You can speak to the school board. You can move your daughter to a school that more aligns with your beliefs. Or you can speak to your daughter and teach her on the subject.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
I think you're misinformed and you should check out what these programs actually are about. In some schools they let parents attend the classes with their children or they have meetings with them to inform them on the contents before the courses take place.
As Apollo mentioned, it's mostly a way to tackle bullying. Your daughter will be confronted with these things anyway, if she won't hear about LGBT+ identities and relationships in general from a teacher, no matter how much you will try to shield her from the topic, she will just get her knowledge from whatever her classmates have heard from their older siblings or seen online.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
I think you're misinformed and you should check out what these programs actually are about. In some schools they let parents attend the classes with their children or they have meetings with them to inform them on the contents before the courses take place.
As Apollo mentioned, it's mostly a way to tackle bullying. Your daughter will be confronted with these things anyway, if she won't hear about LGBT+ identities and relationships in general from a teacher, no matter how much you will try to shield her from the topic, she will just get her knowledge from whatever her classmates have heard from their older siblings or seen online.
It’s not a question of shielding. I understand it’s out there. It’s about her having her head filled with thinking about this at an age when she should be learning important things. I don’t want this fed to her when she is at that super impressionable age because it will take away from learning what she needs for life. And quite frankly to try and teach her these things at such an impressionable age sounds like a cult like recruitment tactic
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
I think you're misinformed and you should check out what these programs actually are about. In some schools they let parents attend the classes with their children or they have meetings with them to inform them on the contents before the courses take place.
As Apollo mentioned, it's mostly a way to tackle bullying. Your daughter will be confronted with these things anyway, if she won't hear about LGBT+ identities and relationships in general from a teacher, no matter how much you will try to shield her from the topic, she will just get her knowledge from whatever her classmates have heard from their older siblings or seen online.
It’s not a question of shielding. I understand it’s out there. It’s about her having her head filled with thinking about this at an age when she should be learning important things. I don’t want this fed to her when she is at that super impressionable age because it will take away from learning what she needs for life. And quite frankly to try and teach her these things at such an impressionable age sounds like a cult like recruitment tactic
But why do you think it would fill her mind more than any other thing she learns about? For her it would probably be perfectly normal and not something to dwell over. I'm sure she knows about straight people being in relationships, but it's not something a child would obsess over. And it's not like they have these classes all the time either.
Also, what do you mean by recruiting? You can't recruit people for the LGBT+ community. If a kid is trans and they've never heard anyone talk about it, they might realize that they are or get the courage to come out when they learn about it, but that's not recruiting.
I'm not sure if she needs to know about these things for her own life (unless she should be queer and in that case she desperately needs to know) but statistically she will surely have schoolmates who are queer and probably struggle with other people's prejudices. For them information is extremely important, both to know that they are not alone and to hopefully face less discrimination from their peers.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest.
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
I think you're misinformed and you should check out what these programs actually are about. In some schools they let parents attend the classes with their children or they have meetings with them to inform them on the contents before the courses take place.
As Apollo mentioned, it's mostly a way to tackle bullying. Your daughter will be confronted with these things anyway, if she won't hear about LGBT+ identities and relationships in general from a teacher, no matter how much you will try to shield her from the topic, she will just get her knowledge from whatever her classmates have heard from their older siblings or seen online.
It’s not a question of shielding. I understand it’s out there. It’s about her having her head filled with thinking about this at an age when she should be learning important things. I don’t want this fed to her when she is at that super impressionable age because it will take away from learning what she needs for life. And quite frankly to try and teach her these things at such an impressionable age sounds like a cult like recruitment tactic
But why do you think it would fill her mind more than any other thing she learns about? For her it would probably be perfectly normal and not something to dwell over. I'm sure she knows about straight people being in relationships, but it's not something a child would obsess over. And it's not like they have these classes all the time either.
Also, what do you mean by recruiting? You can't recruit people for the LGBT+ community. If a kid is trans and they've never heard anyone talk about it, they might realize that they are or get the courage to come out when they learn about it, but that's not recruiting.
I'm not sure if she needs to know about these things for her own life (unless she should be queer and in that case she desperately needs to know) but statistically she will surely have schoolmates who are queer and probably struggle with other people's prejudices. For them information is extremely important, both to know that they are not alone and to hopefully face less discrimination from their peers.
All I’m saying is if there is time in the school day to teach, say, seven subjects, I would rather they be science, math, art, history,......
Comments
Indeed. Would be a great comment on a number of other debates being had around the US right now, too.
Captain Level: 95
VIP Level: 12
Unique Crew Immortalized: 525
Collections Completed: Vulcan, Ferengi, Borg, Romulan, Cardassian, Uncommon, Rare, Veteran, Common, Engineered, Physician, Innovator, Inspiring, Diplomat, Jury Rigger, Gauntlet Legends
People need to stop being taught to be offended and start being taught how to handle life
Thank you, I promise to dial it back in the future :P
I blame social media - I see too many people self-filter news and opinions, and it leads to a bunker mentality, which just reinforces division, which provides justification for the self-filtering and de-friending those with differing views, entrenching the bunker mentality. Ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
It's a very un-virtuous cycle.
And conversely, people need to stop saying and doing offensive things and then getting offended that others are offended. Really depends on the offensive thing and the the intent of it. I think in this instance the Discovery Janeway was meant just as humor and I did not find it offensive.
Yes, that too. If you want to dish it you gotta be able to take it too
It is a tough balance. It helps if people can leave anger out of it on both sides and if society can have open discussions about what is and is not offensive and what was the intent of the comment or act in question.
This is not a recent thing though. This is how most wars have started throughout history. Because anger can not be left out of it and there isn’t discussion about intent. There’s just shoot first ask questions later. Well, this and one group of people can’t stand the fact that another doesn’t believe the same things they do so much that they want to kill them for it.
Intent can certainly be a problem as leaders have to balance perceptions within their group and perceptions of them outside their group. What is the intent of the actions and what is the intent of the threats. This is where diplomacy is critical such as in the Cuban Missle Crisis when JFK had to determine what the USSR's intent was in putting nuclear missles in Cuba and how serious the threat was. Turned out Kruschev's intent was to counter American nuclear missles placed in Turkey and that by Kruschev and JFK reaching out they were able to come to an understanding and remove missles from both places and prevent WW3. Or dealing with dictators that have to look tough for their people and have to make threats to look tough but do not actually intend to carry out those threats. But I think most wars have been started by greed and the rationalization for that greed by depicting the other group as less than human or evil and saying there is a divine reason for the war.
Oh yes to your next to last statement. This is why propaganda can be so important. And I bow to your Cuban Missile Crisis example. It reminds me of the crisis between Vulcan and Andoria over Weyton (spelling could be wrong). T’Pol explained it to Archer as it being similar to Klingons putting a military outpost on the moon.
I would say propaganda is more evil and destructive than important unless you mean it is something important to focus on and eradicate. Propaganda creates a false reality, a denial of facts and can cause people to justify great evils and massacres while at the same time convincing people those evils and massacres are not happening and then afterwards convince people the evils and massacres never happened. Leading up to and during wars propaganda is also used to depict the enemy as less than human.
As to the Enterprise ep, many of the eps pulled inspiration from actual events and wars. It was not just Law and Order that could pull stories "Ripped From the Headlines."
Perhaps important wasn’t the correct word but my point was that propaganda has won and lost wars.
I question whether that cannon is canon.
It might be passive-aggressive but it's definitely not dishonest. I am not offended personally. When I entered this argument I just thought 'who would want this card, it's insane and will just annoy people'. I was totally off on who and why people would want the card. If people want the card because they like the art or the concept then I guess the benefits outweigh potential harms.
I am not super excited about the card myself, but if it's in an event I will grab it and I'll be far more interested in it if it is mechanically good. I am happy that others will like it. I feel exactly the same way about cheesecake seven. I went and got her because she was useful, wasn't really into the card itself. What differed between them was the potential for others to be annoyed (which is something I believe we should care about).
Intellectually it is. The aim is to stem any views by directly associating it with a socially unacceptable behaviour, it's worse than an ad hominem attack as those can at least be humorous and venting is emotionally healthy.
It is designed to paint the person espousing a view as a problem to the wider community, in the hope enough of the community will turn against them to make them want to, at least on the surface, amend their views to become acceptable again.
It's a vile thing to do.
There is no right to not be offended, and nor should there be, as negative rights require there to be easy distinction. e.g. violence against a non-consenting adult.
Quick example. In the UK we currently have a school where schoolchildren are taught about same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+. This offends the locals, many who are practicing Muslims and therefore socially conservative.
The practicing Muslim's opinions on same-sex couples and people who are LGBTQ+, and especially educating their offspring about it, offends same-sex couples and the LGBTQ+ community.
If there is a right to not be offended, yet we have a situation where there is no resolution where one side isn't offended, which groups right trumps the others? Whose rights are deemed invalid in this situation?
And that is why we don't have a right to not be offended. Nothing wrong in considering the feelings of others, but it isn't - and nor should it - be a prerequisite for voicing an opinion.
I will not join the discussion about what should or shouldn't be considered offensive or if we should or shouldn't be allowed to (unintentionally, out of habit or proudly) offend others, because I think that it's a complex topic and it's used way to often in divisive, intellectually dishonest and/or self-referential arguments (NOT by the two of you, but in my experience that's where it ends if you try to have a serious conversation on this topic online. Well, in real life too actually).
As for the Discoway issue, when I came up with it on another thread, it was meant mostly as a joke and a response to a player who keeps referencing the "too many Janeways" argument in almost every single thread on this forum. The OP in this thread meant it as an actual suggestion however, and I can see why. It would be funny and it would be some sort of inside joke between DB and the forum community.
There may be some people who would hate it (and I don't think this only applies to those who hate Janeway and/or Disco. The same could go for those who love one or both of the characters, for those who hate non-canon cards and so on). I just think that the vast majority of players would not have any strong feelings about it, no matter to which group they belong. And it would be fun for everyone else who spends time on the forums. That is, if it was a 4* a 3* or a gift.
A lot of people would probably hate it if it was the new Honor Hall legendary or a recurring mega legendary, but I really don't think there's any risk that that may ever happen.
The difference between the two is the teaching is being forced upon their children which is incorrect. I should have a right to say I don’t want my child taught this and I should not have to have this teaching forced upon my child. Not only am I tired of society trying to confuse my child about sexuality,, I am actually disgusted that society and the media, and now schools of all people, want to expose her to sexuality AT ALL at such a young age. She should be learning how to play games, not being told she doesn’t know what she is or what she wants as far as sex is concerned.
All the thread should be about is if people think if its a good idea or not, and why. I mean thats why I started it....and to ask DB indirectly via the forum.
Nobody is wrong or right per se about the issue. Let alone lecture people HOW peopke are right or wrong.
Its meant to be a fun thread...
Its Discovery Janeway!! What about Assimilated Stammets???? What do people think there? Clearly a 5 star 3 stat card with out of the world science primary and very high engineering with a weaker command 3rd stat
Not going to follow on from this, as I was using it as example as a scenario where you can't avoid giving offence to at least one party, and I rarely debate online anymore as it's just too toxic, plus I'd rather be in a pub watching a band than glued to a screen arguing.
But there is a difference between sexuality and gender, and teaching kids that there are same sex couples and there are people who have changed gender is not the same as teaching them who puts what where in the bedroom. I agree the latter shouldn't be taught to kids, the former is part of the world they live in and IMO should be taught as such, and denying your children that because of your personal biases is a disservice to them.
Both of my parents had a degree of racism and homophobia, but they didn't want their kids to follow suit because they recognised, correctly, it would hinder us in life.
I blame a lot of the anger towards gender issues on Dawkins, his attempts to popularise genetics left everyone thinking DNA was the be-all and end-all, and nothing ever changed once how you were was 'programmed' at conception. Pretty much every anti-trans comment has that view as its origin, despite the fact epigenetics has thoroughly debunked it.
I also feel this way about the new math. It’s confusing, senseless, and actually deviates from reality
Given that the majority of players does not read the forum and/or started after the era the joke is pointing at there is few point in such card. Most people would just be confused and not get the idea behind it.
If anything it should be a 1* giveaway for forum members only - with no collection bonus. But thinking of butter Kirk we learned how bad DB is at giving freebies to dedicated groups of users. So... rather no.
Still I really dig the pic - it is georgeous. But the framing would probably ruin it anyway.
Very few schools teach about gender. And the few that do do so because lgbtq people are a part of the community and make up a significant percentage. It is an effort to stop hate towards the lgbtq community including some of the kids themselves that were taught to be lgbtq was evil or a sin or were facing unending bullying and were committing suicide. People do not choose. Kids do not choose. Gender identity comes from your mind but the mind does not always match the body. People can be born with a male body but with a mind that says they are female and vice versa. Also, people can be born gay or straight or bisexual etc. Sexuality is a spectrum and some people are on one end and others are more towards the middle by varying amounts. I understand your concern Banjo. You want what is best for your child and you worry for her future as all parents do. I promise you no schools are trying to change your child into something they are not. Or do wrong by your child. To your point that you do not want your child exposed to gender and sexuality but to just be a kid, gender and sexuality are everywhere in the world and on tv every day. Just look at primetime shows where the main characters are trying to sleep with people or alluding to it. Kids see everything. Schools are just trying to teach children about the world. Again though, few schools teach anything that you would find inappropriate and certainly not the amount or extent you have been told they do. Some of the people pushing this hate and fear have an agenda. They want your money or your political support. But if any teaching in a school bothers you you have many different options: you can speak with the teacher or someone at the school to better understand the curriculm being taught and why. You can speak to the school board. You can move your daughter to a school that more aligns with your beliefs. Or you can speak to your daughter and teach her on the subject.
Make 1* crew great again.
Which are the routes I will take.
I’ve definiteky thought about it. As long as she gets good social interaction elsewhere I may do that
I think you're misinformed and you should check out what these programs actually are about. In some schools they let parents attend the classes with their children or they have meetings with them to inform them on the contents before the courses take place.
As Apollo mentioned, it's mostly a way to tackle bullying. Your daughter will be confronted with these things anyway, if she won't hear about LGBT+ identities and relationships in general from a teacher, no matter how much you will try to shield her from the topic, she will just get her knowledge from whatever her classmates have heard from their older siblings or seen online.
It’s not a question of shielding. I understand it’s out there. It’s about her having her head filled with thinking about this at an age when she should be learning important things. I don’t want this fed to her when she is at that super impressionable age because it will take away from learning what she needs for life. And quite frankly to try and teach her these things at such an impressionable age sounds like a cult like recruitment tactic
But why do you think it would fill her mind more than any other thing she learns about? For her it would probably be perfectly normal and not something to dwell over. I'm sure she knows about straight people being in relationships, but it's not something a child would obsess over. And it's not like they have these classes all the time either.
Also, what do you mean by recruiting? You can't recruit people for the LGBT+ community. If a kid is trans and they've never heard anyone talk about it, they might realize that they are or get the courage to come out when they learn about it, but that's not recruiting.
I'm not sure if she needs to know about these things for her own life (unless she should be queer and in that case she desperately needs to know) but statistically she will surely have schoolmates who are queer and probably struggle with other people's prejudices. For them information is extremely important, both to know that they are not alone and to hopefully face less discrimination from their peers.
All I’m saying is if there is time in the school day to teach, say, seven subjects, I would rather they be science, math, art, history,......