Im deeply offended by an article found in the warrior call "gay squad"
by taylor gould . He disscusses stereotypes way to be morepower to you
however i dont see blood thursty rednecks out beating gay people to a
pulp because they feel like it. And i am a short person and i have no
problem getting into a chair thank you. and if were talking
stereotypes why wasnt rascisim brought up maybe they thought itd be
too touchy of a subject? okay so say we rid the school no wait the
world of stereotypes .. .... so what are we now? normal? nope because
normal is also a stereotype so maybe were all an individual but who's
to say individualisim (if thats even a word) isnt another stereotype
THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES!!!!! people jus need to learn how
to tolerate them
i completely agree... where was the band people or the poke man
club... i think he was trying to say the right thing just it came out
completely offensive to everyone else.
On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, TotallyWicked <hottiernes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Im deeply offended by an article found in the warrior call "gay squad"
> by taylor gould . He disscusses stereotypes way to be morepower to you
> however i dont see blood thursty rednecks out beating gay people to a
> pulp because they feel like it. And i am a short person and i have no
> problem getting into a chair thank you. and if were talking
> stereotypes why wasnt rascisim brought up maybe they thought itd be
> too touchy of a subject? okay so say we rid the school no wait the
> world of stereotypes .. .... so what are we now? normal? nope because
> normal is also a stereotype so maybe were all an individual but who's
> to say individualisim (if thats even a word) isnt another stereotype
> THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES!!!!! people jus need to learn how
> to tolerate them
Okay. before people go and get offended..whether what is said is true
or not.. it is what is being said. people say things about other
groups of people and it could be totally wrong. that is the point he
is making. just because it is your group that is being targeted doesnt
matter. how you are feeling right now is how gay people feel
everyday. yah maybe what is said was kinda harsh but still..
On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, TotallyWicked <hottiernes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Im deeply offended by an article found in the warrior call "gay squad"
> by taylor gould . He disscusses stereotypes way to be morepower to you
> however i dont see blood thursty rednecks out beating gay people to a
> pulp because they feel like it. And i am a short person and i have no
> problem getting into a chair thank you. and if were talking
> stereotypes why wasnt rascisim brought up maybe they thought itd be
> too touchy of a subject? okay so say we rid the school no wait the
> world of stereotypes .. .... so what are we now? normal? nope because
> normal is also a stereotype so maybe were all an individual but who's
> to say individualisim (if thats even a word) isnt another stereotype
> THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES!!!!! people jus need to learn how
> to tolerate them
> Okay. before people go and get offended..whether what is said is true
> or not.. it is what is being said. people say things about other
> groups of people and it could be totally wrong. that is the point he
> is making. just because it is your group that is being targeted doesnt
> matter. how you are feeling right now is how gay people feel
> everyday. yah maybe what is said was kinda harsh but still..
> On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, TotallyWicked <hottiernes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Im deeply offended by an article found in the warrior call "gay squad"
> > by taylor gould . He disscusses stereotypes way to be morepower to you
> > however i dont see blood thursty rednecks out beating gay people to a
> > pulp because they feel like it. And i am a short person and i have no
> > problem getting into a chair thank you. and if were talking
> > stereotypes why wasnt rascisim brought up maybe they thought itd be
> > too touchy of a subject? okay so say we rid the school no wait the
> > world of stereotypes .. .... so what are we now? normal? nope because
> > normal is also a stereotype so maybe were all an individual but who's
> > to say individualisim (if thats even a word) isnt another stereotype
> > THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES!!!!! people jus need to learn how
> > to tolerate them- Hide quoted text -
I feel that he was trying to make a point but it came out the wrong
way. It was a point that didn't need to be made, but when everyone
reads the article they see themselves. The only part that sounded
deeply offensive was the religion slam.
On Dec 7, 2:17 pm, TotallyWicked <hottiernes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> the purpose of the whole thing to me was to call out people who were
> making fun of other groups of people . . . . this article reeks the
> word hypocrit
> On Dec 7, 2:09 pm, nikki <nikkichic1...@aim.com> wrote:
> > Okay. before people go and get offended..whether what is said is true
> > or not.. it is what is being said. people say things about other
> > groups of people and it could be totally wrong. that is the point he
> > is making. just because it is your group that is being targeted doesnt
> > matter. how you are feeling right now is how gay people feel
> > everyday. yah maybe what is said was kinda harsh but still..
> > On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, TotallyWicked <hottiernes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Im deeply offended by an article found in the warrior call "gay squad"
> > > by taylor gould . He disscusses stereotypes way to be morepower to you
> > > however i dont see blood thursty rednecks out beating gay people to a
> > > pulp because they feel like it. And i am a short person and i have no
> > > problem getting into a chair thank you. and if were talking
> > > stereotypes why wasnt rascisim brought up maybe they thought itd be
> > > too touchy of a subject? okay so say we rid the school no wait the
> > > world of stereotypes .. .... so what are we now? normal? nope because
> > > normal is also a stereotype so maybe were all an individual but who's
> > > to say individualisim (if thats even a word) isnt another stereotype
> > > THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES!!!!! people jus need to learn how
> > > to tolerate them- Hide quoted text -
Well, I really think this whole thing has been blown way out of
proportion. What I got out of it was that the derogatory stereotypes
were meant to show how the person in the scenario at the beginning
felt when he was picked on. Obviously if people are offended and hurt
by the comments, then the article was pretty affective. I just think
most people are taking it the wrong way. It really was not meant as a
personal attack.... And the stereotypes were mocking how stupid they
are, not verifying them. Of course not all groups were mocked (it
would take forever), and it does seem like some groups were portrayed
much more harshly then others. However, mainly I just really don't
think the point got across, and the article has actually created way
more animosity towards the GSA then there was before. Also, it
probably is never a good idea to combat cruelty with cruelty. It just
makes everyone mad.
alright. I have no problem with this article to tell you the truth. He
was trying to show what people sound like when they stereotype, to
show you that it's stupid. See? you don't like it. It worked =] i
agree that people just need get over it.
On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, TotallyWicked <hottiernes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Im deeply offended by an article found in the warrior call "gay squad"
> by taylor gould . He disscusses stereotypes way to be morepower to you
> however i dont see blood thursty rednecks out beating gay people to a
> pulp because they feel like it. And i am a short person and i have no
> problem getting into a chair thank you. and if were talking
> stereotypes why wasnt rascisim brought up maybe they thought itd be
> too touchy of a subject? okay so say we rid the school no wait the
> world of stereotypes .. .... so what are we now? normal? nope because
> normal is also a stereotype so maybe were all an individual but who's
> to say individualisim (if thats even a word) isnt another stereotype
> THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES!!!!! people jus need to learn how
> to tolerate them
He was just trying to get you emotionally involved into what was being
discussed. Many people stereotype when they meet or hear of a
homosexual, and Taylor was attempting to let you know how they feel
whenever someone sterotypes them. Clearly, it has worked on many
readers.
Hello everyone! This is the man of the hour, himself, Taylor Gould!
I'd like to thank Mr. Viles for giving me the opportunity to address
some things on this forum, and then thank all of you for talking so
much about this-- I'm not sure if you know it yet, but that's exactly
what the article was intended to do.
Now, I'd like to address some of the things you have been saying.
"so what are we now? normal?"
No. No, no no. Never. I'm talking about accepting others, not
bleaching differences. Those are two completely, wholly, and grossly
different things. The fact of the matter is, the world is what it is
because of its differences. I mean, get to know me. I'm a really weird
dude. If you take out all the stereotypes, we become not robots, but
people.
"THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES"
This one... wow. Where to start. Society is not built on stereotypes,
it is plagued by them. If you look at a vehicle, and see that it's got
blue paint on it... it's not MADE of blue paint, is it? It's simply
COVERED in blue paint. In all reality, the lives we lead now in
America have a foundation of opression, slavery,
segregation,nonequity, killing, war, lies, invasion, persuasion, and
dissuasion. If you're saying that getting rid of the stereotypes is
wrong because its what our country is built on, you are sorely
mistaken, and should check yourself. If being the foundation for a
country is enough to make something acceptable and right, then all of
those horrible things I mentioned... maybe their not so bad, right? I
don't know. You tell me.
"this article reeks the word hypocrite"
I urge you to read it again if you think so. A hypocrite is one who
says one thing, and does otherwise-- as you probably know. Now, in my
opinion, a writer is someone who sparks the mind and the soul through
words... using devices such as, oh, I don't know... Irony, sarcasm,
satire. In the piece, after all of the "stereotypes", I ask the reader
if he orshe ENJOYS being called such ridiculous things. Answering my
own question, "no". It was a point, not a blatant disregard for my own
words. I'm at least educated enough to stand by my own statements.
"The only part that sounded deeply offensive was the religion slam."
Why, because you're religious? The funny thing about writing is that
the reader bring a piece of themselves into it. I suppose if you
were.. fat you would've had a problem with that piece? Or short? Or a
ditz? Or any of the others? We're human, we all have a secret sense of
self-righteousness.... some of us just don't know it yet. It's simple,
you were offended by the religious comments because you ARE religious.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Finally, I guess I'll just say that I DIDN'T go about the article the
wrong way. Not at all. The stereotypes were in there so people would
get riled up, so people would know, in a sense, what it's like to be
ridiculed, to be judged before being known. To know what some people
(maybe... I dont know, gays, for example) might go through on a daily
basis. That's all. I have no problem or gripe with any group, and if
you had any presence of mind whilst reading this, you may have noticed
that "hey, Taylor belongs to some of those 'cliques', what the heck?"
All I want is for people to think. Becuase, like I said, "No one can
argue that with education comes acceptance, and with acceptance comes
tranquility."
Thanks for reading, and responding.
Taylor,
How are people judging other people.?. If you choose to be gay then
you choose to be gay. That does not mean you are dumb or really smart.
It means that you choose to be gay.. Just like blond that means you're
blond (hair color) it does not mean you're "too dense to understand
something." Or "short who wouldn't be able to climb up into the
chairs."- In my opinion that's a little far fetched. I don't know a
short person would can't sit in their seat. I guess I don't understand
why gays are being discriminated or hurt for the way they choose to
live. I also thought you could have gotten your point without using
satire and offending many groups. If your goal was to get a lot of
talk or to get us thinking you could have done that without being
offensive why? because the whole gay issue is a very controversial
issue.
"No one can
argue that with education comes acceptance, and with acceptance comes
tranquility." --
That sounds true.. Although, for those of us who are not for gay
marriage, rights, etc. don't want it to become a normal accepted
thing.. Furthermore, I think a lot of people need to understand that
people who don't agree with the gay lifestyle does not mean that we
want to discriminate or hurt then (emotionally or physically). "Love
the sinner hate the sin."
Is this issue going to go so far that a person is not going to be able
to expreses the opinion that the gay life style is wrong?
Autumn
On Dec 12, 7:14 pm, TGould <hoop_t_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone! This is the man of the hour, himself, Taylor Gould!
> I'd like to thank Mr. Viles for giving me the opportunity to address
> some things on this forum, and then thank all of you for talking so
> much about this-- I'm not sure if you know it yet, but that's exactly
> what the article was intended to do.
> Now, I'd like to address some of the things you have been saying.
> "so what are we now? normal?"
> No. No, no no. Never. I'm talking about accepting others, not
> bleaching differences. Those are two completely, wholly, and grossly
> different things. The fact of the matter is, the world is what it is
> because of its differences. I mean, get to know me. I'm a really weird
> dude. If you take out all the stereotypes, we become not robots, but
> people.
> "THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES"
> This one... wow. Where to start. Society is not built on stereotypes,
> it is plagued by them. If you look at a vehicle, and see that it's got
> blue paint on it... it's not MADE of blue paint, is it? It's simply
> COVERED in blue paint. In all reality, the lives we lead now in
> America have a foundation of opression, slavery,
> segregation,nonequity, killing, war, lies, invasion, persuasion, and
> dissuasion. If you're saying that getting rid of the stereotypes is
> wrong because its what our country is built on, you are sorely
> mistaken, and should check yourself. If being the foundation for a
> country is enough to make something acceptable and right, then all of
> those horrible things I mentioned... maybe their not so bad, right? I
> don't know. You tell me.
> "this article reeks the word hypocrite"
> I urge you to read it again if you think so. A hypocrite is one who
> says one thing, and does otherwise-- as you probably know. Now, in my
> opinion, a writer is someone who sparks the mind and the soul through
> words... using devices such as, oh, I don't know... Irony, sarcasm,
> satire. In the piece, after all of the "stereotypes", I ask the reader
> if he orshe ENJOYS being called such ridiculous things. Answering my
> own question, "no". It was a point, not a blatant disregard for my own
> words. I'm at least educated enough to stand by my own statements.
> "The only part that sounded deeply offensive was the religion slam."
> Why, because you're religious? The funny thing about writing is that
> the reader bring a piece of themselves into it. I suppose if you
> were.. fat you would've had a problem with that piece? Or short? Or a
> ditz? Or any of the others? We're human, we all have a secret sense of
> self-righteousness.... some of us just don't know it yet. It's simple,
> you were offended by the religious comments because you ARE religious.
> Nothing more, nothing less.
> Finally, I guess I'll just say that I DIDN'T go about the article the
> wrong way. Not at all. The stereotypes were in there so people would
> get riled up, so people would know, in a sense, what it's like to be
> ridiculed, to be judged before being known. To know what some people
> (maybe... I dont know, gays, for example) might go through on a daily
> basis. That's all. I have no problem or gripe with any group, and if
> you had any presence of mind whilst reading this, you may have noticed
> that "hey, Taylor belongs to some of those 'cliques', what the heck?"
> All I want is for people to think. Becuase, like I said, "No one can
> argue that with education comes acceptance, and with acceptance comes
> tranquility."
> Thanks for reading, and responding.
Well Autumn,
First of all, you're stating that being gay is a choice as though that
is a fact, which it is not. Just becuase it's your belief, and a
common belief, doesn't make it true.
Someone once said (who, I'm not sure-- the name escapes me now) "I
didn't wake up one morning and go 'Hey! I'm gonna be straight!' so
what makes people so sure that gays did just that?"
And I'm not here to argue whether it's a choice or not, because I know
this is a black and white issue, and there's no changing your mind--
nor is there changing mine.
What I am here to discuss is the article.
Did you read everything I just wrote in response? I have a hard time
believing that you did, considering I've already addressed some of
your points.
You say that my methods were to use some far-fetched statements...
OBVIOUSLY! That's what satire is. Do you really think I agree with all
those things I said? Some of those ridiculous, over-the-top, horrible,
judgemental things? No. No, I don't. People get upset because they
don't understand. As humans, we have a natural disposition to hate
what we don't understand... and so far, that's been the main issue.
And finally, I'll address your final statement... No. No issue will
ever go so far that we lose our freedom of speech. That's what's great
(and terrible) about this country and its constitution. Sadly, there
will always be the ability to closed-mindedness to have a voice.
Also, I'll point out that people are commonly born with blond hair.
Just like people are born with a designated hair color, people are
born with a designated sexuality.
When thinking in terms of scientific reasoning, I can't help but
wonder why people would be born with a designated sexuality.
Understand me here; for those who believe in Darwin's theory of
"survival of the fittest", then why would people be born with a
sexually attractrion for the same sex embedded in their genes? People
are born with two arms, two legs, a brain, etc. because those are the
types of traits that affect our survival rate. A person with two legs
could outrun the bear chasing him as opposed to the one-legged being.
A person mating with the opposite sex would have a considerable higher
(Oh, about 100%) survival rating (i.e. continuing their generation) as
opposed to a person mating with the same sex......
It just doesn't make sense when you think about the reasons behind it.
But then again, people are born with mental and all sorts of genetic
defects that decrease their chances of surviving. Thus, would that
make homosexuals qualififed for having a "defect"? Perhaps, but I
remain pondering the theories of mankind. Then of course, if this were
the case then by all means why wouldn't humanity be more acceptant to
homosexuals just as they are mentally challenged people? I hope you
see my point here.
It is a creative article that was meant to excite people. Gosh, I
think it has been blown way out of proportion. In the big scope of
life, is it really that important? Lets argue about what we can do to
prevent hunger or opression. Its just an article, although it is well
written. And it seems to have accomplished the goal of it's author.
i think this gay straight thing is stupid i dont even see why were
having this discussion. Oh i remember the whole point of this GSA was
so gay people could feel comfortable in the school. okay so why dont
they feel safe? because people walking down the hall might say "your
queer" or "thats gay" what ever happened to sticks and stones may
break your bones but words can never hurt you?. Im okay with gay
people way to be! but honostly if someone calls another student fat
useually the teacher or the childs parents would just say to not let
it get to you, let it roll off your shoulder. but when someone calls
someone gay all of a sudden its this giant epidenmic that needs
punishment and stuff. Why cant gay people just let it go? why not
punish people who actually have beat'n someone for being gay? and can
i ask you this if b eating someone due to race or sexuality is
considered a hate crime. . . . . . . . . when was the last hate crime
commited at nokomis?
On Dec 13, 9:48 am, TGould <hoop_t_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Also, I'll point out that people are commonly born with blond hair.
> Just like people are born with a designated hair color, people are
> born with a designated sexuality.
> i think this gay straight thing is stupid i dont even see why were
> having this discussion. Oh i remember the whole point of this GSA was
> so gay people could feel comfortable in the school. okay so why dont
> they feel safe? because people walking down the hall might say "your
> queer" or "thats gay" what ever happened to sticks and stones may
> break your bones but words can never hurt you?. Im okay with gay
> people way to be! but honostly if someone calls another student fat
> useually the teacher or the childs parents would just say to not let
> it get to you, let it roll off your shoulder. but when someone calls
> someone gay all of a sudden its this giant epidenmic that needs
> punishment and stuff. Why cant gay people just let it go? why not
> punish people who actually have beat'n someone for being gay? and can
> i ask you this if b eating someone due to race or sexuality is
> considered a hate crime. . . . . . . . . when was the last hate crime
> commited at nokomis?
> On Dec 13, 9:48 am, TGould <hoop_t_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, I'll point out that people are commonly born with blond hair.
> > Just like people are born with a designated hair color, people are
> > born with a designated sexuality.
Danielle, that is a really interesting perspective, and I've never
thought of it that way...I don't believe people choose to be gay, or
that being gay is a defect. However, I do believe in survival of the
fittest (it only makes sense). Theoretically, maybe the human race is
just evolving further. The earth is becoming overpopulated, and maybe
we are evolving to survive by not having too many children. Maybe by
having enough people who cannot have children (and instead choose to
adopt ) we will be able to survive on earth for a longer time. Of
course, I'm not sure if I believe this theory at all. Also, since I'm
nowhere close to being a scientist it could totally make no sense. But
I like it.
Again, I thought you could have gone a diferent root than satire.. It
came out to some as very offensive (not neccessary to me but..) I
disagree with "No issue will ever go so far that we lose our freedom
of speech." We are one day going to loose it.. The gay lifestyle will
become accepted and people who stand up for it and say it's wrong will
be told to be quite..Just because you say it's wrong does not mean you
are discriminative. With your satire.. what was your point?. perhaps
I missed what you were saying.. In what ways are gays discriminated or
labeled? Furthermore, from taking a step back and looking at the
situation it appears that you got a cry from the students for your
offensiveness (again not neccessary personal just overall) what that
your goal? or was your goal to express and talk about the
discriminating against gays?
In response to your gay not being a choice... There is no "gay gene"
nor is it natural. You choose to act on your feelings. Just because
you think a guy is attractive or handsome does not make you gay it is
the sexual act or wanting to have sex .. again you choice to act on
you feelings you choice to have sex.
On Dec 12, 8:38 pm, TGould <hoop_t_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well Autumn,
> First of all, you're stating that being gay is a choice as though that
> is a fact, which it is not. Just becuase it's your belief, and a
> common belief, doesn't make it true.
> Someone once said (who, I'm not sure-- the name escapes me now) "I
> didn't wake up one morning and go 'Hey! I'm gonna be straight!' so
> what makes people so sure that gays did just that?"
> And I'm not here to argue whether it's a choice or not, because I know
> this is a black and white issue, and there's no changing your mind--
> nor is there changing mine.
> What I am here to discuss is the article.
> Did you read everything I just wrote in response? I have a hard time
> believing that you did, considering I've already addressed some of
> your points.
> You say that my methods were to use some far-fetched statements...
> OBVIOUSLY! That's what satire is. Do you really think I agree with all
> those things I said? Some of those ridiculous, over-the-top, horrible,
> judgemental things? No. No, I don't. People get upset because they
> don't understand. As humans, we have a natural disposition to hate
> what we don't understand... and so far, that's been the main issue.
> And finally, I'll address your final statement... No. No issue will
> ever go so far that we lose our freedom of speech. That's what's great
> (and terrible) about this country and its constitution. Sadly, there
> will always be the ability to closed-mindedness to have a voice.
If this discussion goes any further we need to drop the arguement of
where being gay comes from. Whether they are born with it, or it is
their choice, it shouldn't matter. No matter how they got there they
are what they are. The issue is acceptence, allowing other human
beings to live the way they do. This is where the article comes into
play. The article challenges you to treat people from all walks of
life equally. It calls out everyone, uses stupid stereotypes (that
aren't true obiously) to put everyone on the same playing field. It
shows us that everyone could be and are picked on everyday. If you
were offended by this article you should be. The things said in this
article were unfair to everyone (which is why its perfect). but
realize that your not the only one being picked on, and if you dont
think the things in this article should have been said about your
stereotype than join the crowd. I think everyone should be part of the
gay staight alliance because it is not an issue about being gay or
straight. its an issue about being different (which we all are) and
being accepted.
Molly, your theory is interesting too, however homosexuality is no new
thing. Homosexuality dates back thousands (maybe even tens of
thousands) of years ago; when the world wasn't so populated and the
mortality rate was much higher. Think Alexander the Great or Ancient
Greece, as there are numerous records/accounts of homosexual relations
occurring during this time. I wouldn't be surprised if Ancient Egypt
or Babylon (the very first civilization) did as well.
But who knows? Perhaps homosexuality is a natural birth-control, so as
to support your idea. Maybe babies are born with a blank slate in
their minds and, depending on what kind of lifestyle they grow up in,
are destined to develop a homosexual craving.
I know that my intellectual wanderings are off topic from the overall
impact of the newspaper, but hey, I think it's fun to ponder about
these things. Cheers to Molly for also aspiring to inquire!
On Dec 13, 2:11 pm, Molly <tongueinchee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Danielle, that is a really interesting perspective, and I've never
> thought of it that way...I don't believe people choose to be gay, or
> that being gay is a defect. However, I do believe in survival of the
> fittest (it only makes sense). Theoretically, maybe the human race is
> just evolving further. The earth is becoming overpopulated, and maybe
> we are evolving to survive by not having too many children. Maybe by
> having enough people who cannot have children (and instead choose to
> adopt ) we will be able to survive on earth for a longer time. Of
> course, I'm not sure if I believe this theory at all. Also, since I'm
> nowhere close to being a scientist it could totally make no sense. But
> I like it.
First of all, I think that the stated article did what Taylor Gould
wanted it to. It showed that no one likes to be descriminated against.
I think there is a more tactful way of getting the point across,
though. It is possible to treat a person who believes differently than
you nicely. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Even if a person is born
with a 'homosexual gene', they choose whether or not to act upon it.
If I commit a murder and I happen to have been born with a genetic
tendency for murder, does that make what I did okay? No, it doesn't.
On Dec 7, 1:49 pm, TotallyWicked <hottiernes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Im deeply offended by an article found in the warrior call "gay squad"
> by taylor gould . He disscusses stereotypes way to be morepower to you
> however i dont see blood thursty rednecks out beating gay people to a
> pulp because they feel like it. And i am a short person and i have no
> problem getting into a chair thank you. and if were talking
> stereotypes why wasnt rascisim brought up maybe they thought itd be
> too touchy of a subject? okay so say we rid the school no wait the
> world of stereotypes .. .... so what are we now? normal? nope because
> normal is also a stereotype so maybe were all an individual but who's
> to say individualisim (if thats even a word) isnt another stereotype
> THIS SOCIETY IS BUILT ON STEREOTYPES!!!!! people jus need to learn how
> to tolerate them
I think the discussion between Danielle and Molly is great. Just
figured I'd throw that out there. Sometimes people (definitely myself
included, my last post wasn't the most content-relevent it coud have
been) in talks like this allow themselves to argue, instead of
listenind responding. so as of right now, until I have anything too
good to say, I'll let you guys keep this up. It's entertaining and
informed, and it was the exact thing I meant for with this article.
Discussion.
So, thanks! :-D
I think the school newspaper was a very creative idea bringing out all
the strero types and to watch everybody else get mad was kinda funny
to me and some of them still dont understand the article because they
still dont get the problem that the article was addressing.
On Dec 14, 8:04 am, TGould <hoop_t_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think the discussion between Danielle and Molly is great. Just
> figured I'd throw that out there. Sometimes people (definitely myself
> included, my last post wasn't the most content-relevent it coud have
> been) in talks like this allow themselves to argue, instead of
> listenind responding. so as of right now, until I have anything too
> good to say, I'll let you guys keep this up. It's entertaining and
> informed, and it was the exact thing I meant for with this article.
> Discussion.
> So, thanks! :-D
The thing is i dont really think there is a problem sure in our world
maybe but not so much as the here and now in Nokomis Regional high!
And further more taylor gould Just because i dont use big fancy words
when i write a post doesnt mean i'm "un-educated" the idea of your
article was to adress the stereotypes here at nokomis am i right so
far? You wanted to show all of us how gay people must feel when we
offend them by calling them gay correct? so id imagine the purpose of
the article was to show everyone how these gay people are feeling and
in doing so making us look back on our self actions and realizeing
that maybe what we'v been doing is wrong. However in doing that we'd
have to eleminate the stereotypes but you say your not trying to do
that " No. No, no no. Never. I'm talking about accepting others, not
bleaching differences. Those are two completely, wholly, and grossly
different things." I dont think you understand that we have accepted
them . . . . . as gay people am i right? thats what they are "GAY" i
dont see whats wrong in adressing them the way they'v led us to
precieve them as. They call themselfs gay so why cant we call them
gay? its freedom of speech and if you want to say that it has nothing
to do with this . . . . . its just crazy i have the right to call
someone/something gay and even if it is "unethical" its still my right
and im going to use it.
On Dec 14, 10:43 am, "gotr...@yahoo.com" <gotr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think the school newspaper was a very creative idea bringing out all
> the strero types and to watch everybody else get mad was kinda funny
> to me and some of them still dont understand the article because they
> still dont get the problem that the article was addressing.
> On Dec 14, 8:04 am, TGould <hoop_t_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the discussion between Danielle and Molly is great. Just
> > figured I'd throw that out there. Sometimes people (definitely myself
> > included, my last post wasn't the most content-relevent it coud have
> > been) in talks like this allow themselves to argue, instead of
> > listenind responding. so as of right now, until I have anything too
> > good to say, I'll let you guys keep this up. It's entertaining and
> > informed, and it was the exact thing I meant for with this article.
> > Discussion.
> > So, thanks! :-D- Hide quoted text -
|
