Gay teen faces expulsion for defense via stungun

[Dream]

World wide, black people are more likely to starve than white people.

Therefore:

A) Barack Obama is more likely to starve than a homeless white guy.

Or

B) You're an idiot.

No, he's not an idiot. Your example implies you don't actually understand what he's getting at, but are prepared to judge him in your ignorance. That is much more idiotic than is applying a statistical likelihood to an individual situation.

it seems like you are implying that it is up to Young not to be bullied,

It's not up to him not to be bullied. But it is negligent to ignore potential relief from the bullying on the grounds that it seems to an outside observer to be more like avoiding the situation than solving it. And yes, in spite of the desires of some people here that teenagers be expected to be mature and understanding, sometimes it is better to modify one's behaviour in order to best achieve one's aims. If I were in the Celtic stand at an Old Firm derby I'd cover up my (non-existant) Rangers tattoos. I would not display them proudly and then when I wake up in hospital claim that it's wrong to hit people because of their football team, and so I can blame the stadium security for not keeping me safe from harm.

It's wrong for the school to suggest that maybe Young should just look less gay (thought it hasn't been shown that they were so insensitive, they could have raised the issue in communication with Young himself, and been politely rebuffed). But it's not wrong for anyone to raise the question of whether continuing at that school is the best course of action for him. It's not wrong to ask if the greater good of being safe at school isn't worth compromise in some areas of his life, much that we wish he didn't have to think that way. That compromise might be finding a more liberal school atmosphere.

I don't see a whole lot of room for misinterpretation there, and as I mentioned, outside of school, being outnumbered by aggressive assailants and unable to run would be justification for use of lethal force.

My point isn't that it could be misinterpreted as being a less threatening situation, it's that any of the kids involved will say they didn't really do or say anything, they were just part of a crowd, and didn't have it in for Young at all. It's very hard to single any of them out for severe punishment. There's a discord between the crime, which is just words, and the effect, which is fear and intimidation way out of proportion to what any one kid actually did. And like I said, that's an age old problem for schools. One kid says they just put a worm in someon's hair, the other kid is traumatised and has to go home crying. Do you punish for the very minor act of worm-putting, or for the major act of scaring someone out of school? The former is nothing, the latter is not what the perpetrator actually did.

However, that should not be taken as a minimization of the real harm and mental anguish such behavior can cause, which is worth preventing.

Not at all, you're right. But in legal terms, it's like homicide degrees. If your manslaughter kills two parents and orphans several children, you're going to get a longer sentence than someone who killed a belligerent drunk with no dependents. But it's not going to turn your manslaughter into murder so you can be imprisoned for life. Nothing about the victim's reaction to the crime turns the crime into something it wasn't. So in this case, the collective actions of all the bullies, big and small, is very severe. But it will be nigh impossible to find anyone to punish for that. All their actual crimes will be much less grievous. That's an unpleasant truth, but it's also the reason bullying is such a big and difficult problem.

[Kulantan]

Your example implies you don't actually understand what he's getting at, but are prepared to judge him in your ignorance. That is much more idiotic than is applying a statistical likelihood to an individual situation.

Or I might just have been using cunningly hyperbolic rhetoric to ridicule the idea of drawing straight causative lines on the basis of a correlation*. I might understand that we're talking about a factor leading to an increase in risk rather than the absolute risk being determined by a single factor. But by all means judge me in your ignorance.

*as in it is pretty ridiculous to say that increase melanin in your skin means you are at greater relative risk of starvation because of world starvation statistics

[Dream]

*as in it is pretty ridiculous to say that increase melanin in your skin means you are at greater relative risk of starvation because of world starvation statistics

Which is exactly why I say you don't understand. You know that morriswalters doesn't think that skin colour itself causes violent death. But you persist in attacking that angle because it suits your belief that the safety issues caused by arming kids are not relevant to this case. It's foolish, and some might go so far as to say it's idiotic. But if I say either, it's not in ignorance, it's in full possession of the facts of what you've posted.

[gmalivuk]

World wide, black people are more likely to starve than white people.

Therefore:

A) Barack Obama is more likely to starve than a homeless white guy.

Or

B) You're an idiot.

These are the moments when I regret being and atheist, I can't blame this on God. Can I refer you to an insurance agent? Can you be bothered to look up the term actuarial. In a direct one to one counter example would you recommend giving an alcoholic a free booze supply for life as an aid to helping him stay sober?

Homework for you and whats her name. Actuarial Science.

In traditional life insurance, actuarial science focuses on the analysis of mortality, the production of life tables, and the application of compound interest to produce life insurance, annuities and endowment policies. Contemporary life insurance programs have been extended to include credit and mortgage insurance, key man insurance for small businesses, long term care insurance and health savings accounts

What?

What does any of that have to do with Kulantan's post? Kulantan *knows* that Barack Obama is not actually more likely to starve than a homeless white guy. The implication of that post was that the truth is in fact option B: you're an idiot. Given your completely and bizarrely irrelevant reply, I'm inclined to agree.

The point is, if we know *only* a person's race, we can indeed make some actuarial guesses about how they'll die. But that's all they are: guesses. If we then know any additional information whatsoever, we should adjust those guesses. Person A is black, person B is white. Therefore our first guess is that person A is more likely to starve to death than person B. If we are then told that person A is the President of the United States of America, while person B is homeless, it would literally be insane not to adjust our risk assessment.

And so, depending on the actual crime rates in the actual place where this happened, plus accounting for the additional fact that the kid in question was already regularly being physically assaulted by a dangerous group of peers, it might actually be the really true reality of this situation that giving her kid that stun gun *decreased* his risk of severe injury or death. I certainly can't know for sure whether this is the case, but of course neither can you, because you have no more information about it than I do.

Thinking that we can get reasonable risk estimates about this specific individual by looking at statistics that account solely for race and gender is absurd. You don't typically get *more* accurate estimates when you use significantly *less* information.

No, he's not an idiot. Your example implies you don't actually understand what he's getting at, but are prepared to judge him in your ignorance. That is much more idiotic than is applying a statistical likelihood to an individual situation.

No, I think you don't understand what he's getting at. Or, I guess, maybe you're being equally idiotic. He said, "[Young] faces a higher risk of dying by homicide no matter his location, who does it, with what weapon,or for what reason." This is patently false and absurd, and applying the "logic" morriswalters is using to the President and to a homeless white guy would lead to the equally patently false and absurd conclusion that Barack Obama is the more likely one to die of starvation.

But you persist in attacking that angle because it suits your belief that the safety issues caused by arming kids are not relevant to this case.

Are you reading the same thread I'm reading? Can you point me to where anyone ever said those safety issues are irrelevant? What's irrelevant (or at least not as relevant as morriswalters (and you, apparently) think) is general nationwide statistical trends in black-on-black murder rates.

[Dream]

No, I think you don't understand what he's getting at. Or, I guess, maybe you're being equally idiotic. He said, "[Young] faces a higher risk of dying by homicide no matter his location, who does it, with what weapon,or for what reason." This is patently false and absurd, and applying the "logic" morriswalters is using to the President and to a homeless white guy would lead to the equally patently false and absurd conclusion that Barack Obama is the more likely one to die of starvation.

I said "more" idiotic, implying that applying statistical likelihood to individual situations is itself idiotic. But you can go on thinking that implication wasn't there. You just missed it, and beyond pointing it out to you, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. The whole race angle is an irrelevant tangent anyway.

[Kulantan]

But you persist in attacking that angle because it suits your belief that the safety issues caused by arming kids are not relevant to this case. It's foolish, and some might go so far as to say it's idiotic.

Remind me where in this thread I have said anything to do with a "belief that the safety issues caused by arming kids are not relevant to this case". In fact find one mention of anything about arms or arming and I'll give you a cookie.

[gmalivuk]

You just missed it, and beyond pointing it out to you, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.

You're apparently not interested in even that, since you still haven't pointed it out to me. I can only conclude that you are unable to do so because it isn't there. But even if it is (since I admit I've probably skimmed over some of the posts made here), it isn't relevant to our criticism of morriswalters ridiculous insistence on bringing up crime statistics as though we can use them to draw useful conclusions in this particular case, when we have so much more information than the guy's race and sex.

[Dream]

When I say one thing is MORE idiotic than another, I mean both are idiotic, but one is more so. You somehow took that to mean that I actually agree with the thing I said was idiotic, only less so.

[jareds]

I never said that the 1994 law applied specifically, I said it started the trend.

You immediately thereafter quoted the section of the Indianapolis Public School Board policies implementing the local compliance with the 1994 law, and claimed that if he violated it, he would be expelled.

Possession of a Firearm or a Destructive Device

The penalty for violation of this section is a minimum of ten (10) school days' suspension, pending an expulsion meeting, and, upon a finding of violation by the expulsion examiner, expulsion from school for one (1) calendar year, with the return of the student to be at the beginning of the first school semester after the end of one (1) year period. The Superintendent may, on a case-by-case basis, modify the period of expulsion for a student who is expelled under this section. A student with disabilities (as defined in I.C. 20-35-7-7) who violates this section is subject to procedural safeguards under 20 U.S.C. § 1415.
5. The Superintendent or Superintendent shall notify the Office of the Marion County Prosecutor when a student is expelled for this reason.

I think this is pretty clear, this is a quote of the relevant section of The Indianapolis School Board's policy on destructive devices. The only point in question is did he have a Destructive Device as defined by the School Board. If he did he will be expelled. The final line is interesting, don't you think, in so much as the mother broke state law by giving the stun gun to her son, it is unlikely that either of them will be charged but not certain.

While it may very well be true that he would be expelled if he violated the policy you quoted, no rational and informed person could possibly believe that he did. The material you quote can be found in context by going here, clicking Policies at the top, and clicking "550 SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION" on the side.

B. Possession of a Firearm or a Destructive Device
1. No student shall possess, handle, transmit, or bring to school or on school property any firearm or destructive device.
2. A "firearm" shall be defined as any device described in I.C. 35-47-1-5 and includes devices considered to be a firearm as defined in Tile 18 U.S.C. §921.
3. A "destructive device" shall be defined as any device described in I.C. 35-47.5-2-4.
4. The penalty for violation of this section is a minimum of ten (10) school days' suspension, pending an expulsion meeting, and, upon a finding of violation by the expulsion examiner, expulsion from school for one (1) calendar year, with the return of the student to be at the beginning of the first school semester after the end of one (1) year period. The Superintendent may, on a case-by-case basis, modify the period of expulsion for a student who is expelled under this section. A student with disabilities (as defined in I.C. 20-35-7-7) who violates this section is subject to procedural safeguards under 20 U.S.C. § 1415.
5. The Superintendent shall notify the Office of the Marion County Prosecutor when a student is expelled for this reason.
C. Possession of a Deadly Weapon other than a Firearm
1. A student who is identified as bringing a deadly weapon as defined in I.C. 35-41-1-8 to school or on school property or who possesses a deadly weapon on school property may be expelled for a period of not more than one (1) calendar year.
2. The Superintendent shall notify the Office of the Marion County Prosecutor when a student is expelled for this reason.

I.C. 35-47.5-2-4 almost mirrors the federal law that doesn't apply, except it adds "Molotov cocktail" and replaces "poison gas" with "overpressure device". No reasonable person can believe that a stun gun fits the Indiana or federal definition of a "destructive device" or the definition of a "firearm" (which must expel a projectile via an explosion).

A "deadly weapon" includes an "electronic stun weapon", which must exceed a 5 mA shock (otherwise it is a "stun gun", which is not a "deadly weapon"). It is possible, but unlikely, that his stun gun was actually an "electronic stun weapon". Even if it was an "electronic stun weapon", under section C, he may be expelled for not more than one year, for possessing it. This is not mandatory expulsion.

No reasonable person could read your posts and not think that you were citing this stuff in the course of claiming that he is subject to mandatory expulsion for possessing a stun gun. However, he unequivocally is not, as you could see if you didn't ignore the context of the stuff you were reading, and not linking to in order to allow others to read.

You should apologize to Ghostbear, for being wrong and then doubling down when you were called on it.

[gmalivuk]

When I say one thing is MORE idiotic than another, I mean both are idiotic, but one is more so. You somehow took that to mean that I actually agree with the thing I said was idiotic, only less so.

Ah, I thought you meant the implication that anyone believes that "the safety issues etc.". Do you still claim anyone in this thread has expressed that belief? Because I sure would be interested in seeing where.

[Dream]

When I say one thing is MORE idiotic than another, I mean both are idiotic, but one is more so. You somehow took that to mean that I actually agree with the thing I said was idiotic, only less so.

Ah, I thought you meant the implication that anyone believes that "the safety issues etc.". Do you still claim anyone in this thread has expressed that belief? Because I sure would be interested in seeing where.

Kulantan singled out the phrase "risk is risk" and ridiculed it by likening it to claiming Barack Obama's nutritional intake was suspect because of his skin colour. To me, that means they believe that analysis of risk (i.e. the danger to Young) is to be dismissed from the discussion.

[Kulantan]

I was ridiculing the idea that the risk of a group must be applicable to every member of the group aka [group] risk is [individual] risk.

However I do think it is a bit much to pretend to seriously ponder the risk of specific circumstances that you are this sure of:

As for the bullies, we still don't know if any of them individually did anything that can be punished harshly enough to merit the kind of punishment that Young's experience requires. Stone and bottle throwing could have been pebbles and empty plastic bottles, rather than dangerous rocks and glass. Following him home could have been name calling by local kids rather than out and out stalking. When you've only got a teenager and his mother to go on, things that loom large in their lives can when examined by a disciplinary board turn out to be less than they seem.

[morriswalters]

gmalivuk I don't need Dream to comment for me I can do that myself. At this point there is nothing I can do to convince you that what I am saying is not what your reading into it. That should not surprise me. If I said statistically living next store to a fireworks manufacturing site is dangerous you would apply the term risk in terms of the statistical possibility of being harmed by an accident there. Your insurance company would boost your premium. And under no circumstance would you light a match if you went to visit. No matter if you can see it or not, expecting that young man to be safer by arming him with any weapon is an exercise in stupidity. This would be true of any child, more so with him. I doubt if in your circle that you can find one parent who thinks arming his son and sending him to school is wise. I know that if my parents had thought that I was at risk in school they would have kept me home till hell froze over and would have been prepared to go to jail to do it

While it may very well be true that he would be expelled if he violated the policy you quoted, no rational and informed person could possibly believe that he did. The material you quote can be found in context by going here, clicking Policies at the top, and clicking "550 SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION" on the side.

Opinions are like assholes, we all have them. However my opinion and yours is unimportant outside of this fora. The expulsion hearing will decide if he did indeed violate the policy. That will happen at whatever time that has been set.

You immediately thereafter quoted the section of the Indianapolis Public School Board policies implementing the local compliance with the 1994 law, and claimed that if he violated it, he would be expelled.

I would suggest that you return to school and learn how to parse speech. If he is found to have violated the policy he will be expelled. Or did you think this discussion was merely a theoretical exercise designed to amuse the fora at my expense? Just for the record I have posted more factual data than anyone else, including a link to the same page you threw at me. You can be certain that I read it and I am not going to apologize to anyone.

I suggest reading through the threads and catching just a few of the glaring misstatements, with the biggest one being that there is a Zero Tolerance Policy on bullying. Since neither you nor anyone else has bothered to define it, I'll share with you that there is no precise definition, which is the part of the problem. Princess whatever I did it to make fun of you after you spent a full paragraph calling me fucking stupid, I'm so sorry that you were offended, Not. Now since this is way to distracting I will withdraw, be certain that I think no higher of you than you do of me.

[Lucrece]

What's a more liberal high school in Indianapolis? Considering he's attending a school in the capital of a state where you can find neo-nazi's frequenting Walmart, and he's still getting bullied in the high school of a capital city. More importantly, who will pay for his transportation and the scheduling inconveniences due to distance imposed on him because local kids didn't like him? And what message is sent to the bullies and bullying victims when you cart out the unpopular misfit somewhere else and the bullies themselves get to stay with little consequence to their personal and academic lives?

[gmalivuk]

This would be true of any child, more so with him.

It's that "moreso with him" addition that I find ridiculous, since you're basing it only on his race. As I said, it's conceivable that in this particular situation, arming the kid improved his chances, because of all the extenuating circumstances beyond race.

It might be true that an otherwise identical in every way white kid would be at less risk on account of race, but you can't demonstrate that with any reliability from national-scale crime statistics, because you have no reason to assume all of this guy's particular circumstances are independent of race.

[Lucrece]

While it may very well be true that he would be expelled if he violated the policy you quoted, no rational and informed person could possibly believe that he did. The material you quote can be found in context by going here, clicking Policies at the top, and clicking "550 SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION" on the side.

Opinions are like assholes, we all have them. However my opinion and yours is unimportant outside of this fora. The expulsion hearing will decide if he did indeed violate the policy. That will happen at whatever time that has been set.

Yeah, and he will be judged by a group of his peers, I'm sure.

[jareds]

You immediately thereafter quoted the section of the Indianapolis Public School Board policies implementing the local compliance with the 1994 law, and claimed that if he violated it, he would be expelled.

I would suggest that you return to school and learn how to parse speech. If he is found to have violated the policy he will be expelled. Or did you think this discussion was merely a theoretical exercise designed to amuse the fora at my expense?

Seriously, you think I should learn to parse speech? I clearly said, "While it may very well be true that he would be expelled if he violated the policy you quoted, no rational and informed person could possibly believe that he did." Failure to quote that sentence doesn't mean I'll forgot I said it. You can't possibly claim that I didn't understand that your words had the form of a conditional statement that is literally true. The problem is that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the antecedent of the conditional statement is true, as the policy you cite is completely irrelevant to the case. Ignoring the hypertechnical interpretation you're falling back on, you have obviously been claiming that he is subject to a mandatory expulsion policy that has a rational possibility of applying to his actions.

Your fallback position is no more intelligent than reading a news article that a student punched another student and broke his nose, observing (technically correctly) that the student will be expelled if he possessed a firearm or destructive device, and then throwing a tantrum when someone points out that nobody but you has suggested that there is the slightest reason to believe that he possessed a firearm or destructive device simply because he punched a student.

Opinions are like assholes, we all have them. However my opinion and yours is unimportant outside of this fora. The expulsion hearing will decide if he did indeed violate the policy. That will happen at whatever time that has been set.

Do you think that the firearms/destructive device policy you cited is the only grounds for expulsion that the district has?? If he is expelled, you will not be right. You will only be right if he is expelled for possessing a firearm or a "destructive device", which is to say a bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, Molotov cocktail, a substantially similar device, or a projectile weapon using explosive or propellant. Needless to say, this is quite unlikely.

Just for the record I have posted more factual data than anyone else, including a link to the same page you threw at me. You can be certain that I read it and I am not going to apologize to anyone.

My apologies, you did link to the same page I did earlier in the discussion. However, whether you read it or not, you obviously didn't read it carefully enough to quote the section of it that has any chance of applying to this situation.

[Dream]

Yeah, and he will be judged by a group of his peers, I'm sure.

I really, really hope not. Schools are not places for jury trials, and teenagers don't belong on juries. This kid is firmly in the territory where people who actually know how to handle this situation should be making the decisions, and yes, that's me saying he's not the best person to decide what's best in this situation. His are only one of a very complicated set of requirements, including the school, its students, and even the bullies. Someone vastly more experienced than a child needs to be making decisions here.

[morriswalters]

This would be true of any child, more so with him.

It's that "moreso with him" addition that I find ridiculous, since you're basing it only on his race. As I said, it's conceivable that in this particular situation, arming the kid improved his chances, because of all the extenuating circumstances beyond race.

It might be true that an otherwise identical in every way white kid would be at less risk on account of race, but you can't demonstrate that with any reliability from national-scale crime statistics, because you have no reason to assume all of this guy's particular circumstances are independent of race.

I was tempted to reply privately, but as a courtesy I won't. You can't demonstrate anything about this gentleman, nothing, other than the reports in the papers and on the web. The administration has been vilified, and this has become a national Cause célèbre based on zero data, other than his accounts and his mothers, everybody else is muzzled because of his privacy concerns. People here have done what they do which is when they can't cudgel you into agreement, that is resorted to name calling. Certainly I have seen nothing that indicates he has ever been physically harmed. They have misstated the Zero Tolerance Policy to suit them and took any other rhetorical liberties they felt would serve their cause. As to your statement that I can't show you you a connection I would state that you can't show me he was in any way safer. I would rather be wrong my way than yours. I'll leave you the last word if you wish.

[Lucrece]

Yeah, and he will be judged by a group of his peers, I'm sure.

I really, really hope not. Schools are not places for jury trials, and teenagers don't belong on juries. This kid is firmly in the territory where people who actually know how to handle this situation should be making the decisions, and yes, that's me saying he's not the best person to decide what's best in this situation. His are only one of a very complicated set of requirements, including the school, its students, and even the bullies. Someone vastly more experienced than a child needs to be making decisions here.

And these "vastly qualified" people may not happen to be influenced in their decisions by some form of homophobia, just like those administrators who suggested that a solution for his problem would be to become less effeminate?

Fuck that, I'd much rather this go to a district judge than to board members of the same system that would suffer a black eye if they were to deliver a positive judgement for the victim. It's about as good as going to Internal Affairs for police misconduct -- police most often gets off easy or with minimal consequences.

[gmalivuk]

Certainly I have seen nothing that indicates he has ever been physically harmed.

Throwing rocks and bottles at someone isn't physical harm? What the fuck planet are you living on?

They have misstated the Zero Tolerance Policy to suit them and took any other rhetorical liberties they felt would serve their cause.

You're the one who couldn't even be bothered to find the policy of the school in question, electing instead to quote the policy of a completely different school and claim it was the one in question. You're the one who quoted a 1994 law that explicitly says *nothing* about the type of weapon involved in this case, along with legal and school policy as it relates to the kinds of weapons that are described in that 1994 law. Despite the fact that said law is irrelevant to this case.

As to your statement that I can't show you you a connection I would state that you can't show me he was in any way safer.

I don't recall ever saying I could. I only said that it is conceivable. You're the one who is making definite claims about his safety, and you're not even basing them on any of the few details we do know from the news articles. You're basing that assessment solely on his race, which as I and numerous others have pointed out, is an absurd way to assess individual risk when we know much more about that individual than their race.

[Nordic Einar]

I'd also like to point out that Morris using national murder statistics is kind of a red herring, since my original objection to Morris wasn't on whether or not young black men were more likely than young white men to be murdered, or whether that kind of group statistical analysis can or should be applied to individual instances of lives.

What I objected to was the suggestion that it's "black culture" or more specifically "ghetto culture" that is the reason behind that violence, as opposed to all the other possible oppressive and structural factors that lead to a higher rate of young black male homicide rates. This entire argument is fallacious because it's had nothing to do with the objection I had in the first place, which is actually super meta because it's a hilarious representation of most of this thread to begin with.

**EDIT**

Also, Dream? Victim blaming can go fuck itself, and if you were beaten up for wearing the wrong sports jersey you should blame the stadium staff for allowing it to happen, and your assailants should go to jail for assaulting you. Queer kids shouldn't be told "be less of a faggot" if you don't want to get beat up, and it's fucking heterosexist as hell to suggest that's okay. Incidentally, women shouldn't be raped for what they're wearing, immigrant children shouldn't be assaulted for not assimilating fast enough, and any number of other ridiculous victim blaming bullshit that you can imagine shouldn't fucking happen.

Piss right the fuck off.

[gmalivuk]

I'd also like to point out that Morris using national murder statistics is kind of a red herring, since my original objection to Morris wasn't on whether or not young black men were more likely than young white men to be murdered, or whether that kind of group statistical analysis can or should be applied to individual instances of lives.

Well, yeah. That's trying to discuss anything at all with morriswalters, for you.

[yoni45]

Also, Dream? Victim blaming can go fuck itself, and if you were beaten up for wearing the wrong sports jersey you should blame the stadium staff for allowing it to happen, and your assailants should go to jail for assaulting you. Queer kids shouldn't be told "be less of a faggot" if you don't want to get beat up, and it's fucking heterosexist as hell to suggest that's okay. Incidentally, women shouldn't be raped for what they're wearing, immigrant children shouldn't be assaulted for not assimilating fast enough, and any number of other ridiculous victim blaming bullshit that you can imagine shouldn't fucking happen.

Piss right the fuck off.

So, how many gay kids are we sacrificing for this 'be-yourself' cause?

[Princess Marzipan]

I'd also like to point out that Morris using national murder statistics is kind of a red herring, since my original objection to Morris wasn't on whether or not young black men were more likely than young white men to be murdered, or whether that kind of group statistical analysis can or should be applied to individual instances of lives.

Well, yeah. That's trying to discuss anything at all with morriswalters, for you.

That. Idiot.

So, how many gay kids are we sacrificing for this 'be-yourself' cause?

VICTIM. BLAMING.

[Dream]

So, how many gay kids are we sacrificing for this 'be-yourself' cause?

VICTIM. BLAMING.

Further to yoni's point, are we planning all our lives around utopia now? Like, surely I can sue every burglar in my town in a class action to recoup cost of my alarm system, because I shouldn't have to spend money and alter my home just to be safe in it, right? I mean, it's just victim blaming to tell me I should have altered my behaviour to acknowledge the existence of burglars, and make myself safer from them, right?

[M.C.]

Also, Dream? Victim blaming can go fuck itself, and if you were beaten up for wearing the wrong sports jersey you should blame the stadium staff for allowing it to happen, and your assailants should go to jail for assaulting you. Queer kids shouldn't be told "be less of a faggot" if you don't want to get beat up, and it's fucking heterosexist as hell to suggest that's okay. Incidentally, women shouldn't be raped for what they're wearing, immigrant children shouldn't be assaulted for not assimilating fast enough, and any number of other ridiculous victim blaming bullshit that you can imagine shouldn't fucking happen.

Piss right the fuck off.

The school had been trying to help Young, who transferred there last year, Yarrell said, by recommending that he "tone down" his accessories.

"If you wear female apparel, then kids are kids and they're going to say whatever it is that they want to say," Yarrell told the newspaper. "Because you want to be different and because you choose to wear female apparel, it may happen. In the idealistic society, it shouldn't matter. People should be able to wear what they want to wear.

Since when is wearing feminine apparel intrinsic to being gay? Telling him that he might want to wear clothes that make him stand out less is not trying to repress his gayness, it's equivalent to getting someone to stop wearing political slogans on their shirt.

You obviously cannot get someone to be less gay, but it is entirely reasonable to suggest someone to dress less provocatively.

[Lucrece]

What a horrible analogy, as if gender expression were some frivolous behavior and not with basis in some biology. I can see you are not familiar with the results of effeminate men who try to act more manly. The blue colored jersey won't remove his feminine mannerisms; he can wear baggy jeans and shirts with chains -- they'll still call him a faggot because his voice is high, he gesticulates with his hands, and that's not something you change like some political slogan on your dress.

[EdgarJPublius]

There's a difference between installing an alarm (defending yourself) and living in a hovel so no one wants to steal from you (altering your behavior/appearance to avoid being victimized)

[M.C.]

What a horrible analogy, as if gender expression were some frivolous behavior and not with basis in some biology. I can see you are not familiar with the results of effeminate men who try to act more manly.

Being gay!=Being effeminate. Being effeminate!=need to wear girls clothes. If he was transgender, it would be different, but his desire to wear female apparel is no more intrinsic to his identity than someone who identifies as a "goth".

EDIT:

Also, welcome to fucking high school. There would not be a single kid in a school who does not choose clothing based in some part by the reaction of their peers.

[Bassoon]

So, how many gay kids are we sacrificing for this 'be-yourself' cause?

VICTIM. BLAMING.

Further to yoni's point, are we planning all our lives around utopia now? Like, surely I can sue every burglar in my town in a class action to recoup cost of my alarm system, because I shouldn't have to spend money and alter my home just to be safe in it, right? I mean, it's just victim blaming to tell me I should have altered my behaviour to acknowledge the existence of burglars, and make myself safer from them, right?

Buying a home in a dangerous locale is far, far different from being born queer, black, female, or into any other protected class, and you know that. Your analogy sets up a straw man: the place you inhabit isn't an inherent quality about yourself. You weren't born into the house you'll live in for the rest of your life. Most people have a choice about where they live. People do not have the ability to choose their race, sexual identity, gender identity, or other inherent qualities about themselves, and this is why victim blaming is bad. You are shaming the victim for something they cannot change, as opposed to your house analogy.

[yoni45]

There's a difference between installing an alarm (defending yourself) and living in a hovel so no one wants to steal from you (altering your behavior/appearance to avoid being victimized)

Only in degree.

So, how many gay kids are we sacrificing for this 'be-yourself' cause?

VICTIM. BLAMING.

You should try those useless slogans repetitively. Caps and repetition are like force multipliers when it comes to that.

[Lucrece]

What a horrible analogy, as if gender expression were some frivolous behavior and not with basis in some biology. I can see you are not familiar with the results of effeminate men who try to act more manly.

Being gay!=Being effeminate. Being effeminate!=need to wear girls clothes. If he was transgender, it would be different, but his desire to wear female apparel is no more intrinsic to his identity than someone who identifies as a "goth".

EDIT:

Also, welcome to fucking high school. There would not be a single kid in a school who does not choose clothing based in some part by the reaction of their peers.

For fuck's sake, not all gay men are effeminate (and I know this because I'm part of such cokcsucking fellowship, so I don't need to be lectured on this), but many ARE. There's sexual orientation, gender expression, and gender identity. Not all feminine gay men want to be women -- it's just that their neuroendocrinological make-up inclines them toward what's normally deemed feminine. Look at examples in other societies like Fa'afafine and the five different genders in Indonesia.

Gender expression isn't solely socialized. I'm fairly sure in fucking homophobic Indiana, while his stereotypically masculine twin brother wears traditionally male apparel, he didn't have the brilliant idea of CHOOSING to sport apparel that will lead him to get beat up and marginalized day in and day out just for shits and giggles.

[Telchar]

I'm always amused at the idea that kids wear clothes that get their ass kicked because they enjoy getting their ass kicked. I really want one all gay school to beat up some guy for wearing a Koby Bryant jersey and then maybe this discussion becomes less amusing and more serious.

[M.C.]

For fuck's sake, not all gay men are effeminate (and I know this because I'm part of such cokcsucking fellowship,

Firstly, can I use that term from now on? I like the idea of being part of a fellowship.

so I don't need to be lectured on this), but many ARE. There's sexual orientation, gender expression, and gender identity. Not all feminine gay men want to be women -- it's just that their neuroendocrinological make-up inclines them toward what's normally deemed feminine. Look at examples in other societies like Fa'afafine and the five different genders in Indonesia.

Gender expression isn't solely socialized. I'm fairly sure in fucking homophobic Indiana, while his stereotypically masculine twin brother wears traditionally male apparel, he had the brilliant idea of CHOOSING to sport apparel that will lead him to get beat up and marginalized day in and day out.

What I'm saying is telling him wearing girls clothes is a bad idea isn't the same as telling him to be less faggy. Not wearing jeans and a generic tee isn't something that is, or should be related to his sexual orientation. Hell, skinny jeans are now being worn by straight kids, so it doesn't even have to be terribly masculine.

It just really pisses me off that people try to claim that acting in a way that makes you stand out from everyone else are just part of being gay, because gays are just like everyone else. You know how varied the gay community is, so why should wearing girls clothing be protected as part of his sexual orientation?

I'm always amused at the idea that kids wear clothes that get their ass kicked because they enjoy getting their ass kicked. I really want one all gay school to beat up some guy for wearing a Koby Bryant jersey and then maybe this discussion becomes less amusing and more serious.

No, those kids wear those clothes because they want to. Doesn't mean that telling them wearing such clothing will make them stand out is a bad idea.

(Also, there are a lot of gay Laker fans. )

[BattleMoose]

Advising gay kids to stay closeted in high-school is just good advise, they can be awful awful places. But they should be able to be themselves (all kids really) and express themselves freely.


But its not okay for the school system to advise this because they are actually responsible for making it a safe environment and are actually expected to make it safe. It is also basically a confession that they either cannot or have no inclination to make it a safe environment for gay kids. The school needs to recognize that it isn't a safe place for gay kids and it needs to endeavor to fix that.

One can live in the real world and behave according to the realities of it while recognizing how it is broken and how it should also be fixed.

[Lucrece]

What I'm saying is telling him wearing girls clothes is a bad idea isn't the same as telling him to be less faggy. Not wearing jeans and a generic tee isn't something that is, or should be related to his sexual orientation. Hell, skinny jeans are now being worn by straight kids, so it doesn't even have to be terribly masculine.

It just really pisses me off that people try to claim that acting in a way that makes you stand out from everyone else are just part of being gay, because gays are just like everyone else. You know how varied the gay community is, so why should wearing girls clothing be protected as part of his sexual orientation?

Telling him someone to be "less flamboyant" goes beyond telling them to wear more gender-typical apparel. Flamboyant is often used as well for mannerisms, and as I said before making him wear masculine clothes would be akin to pig with make-up because his voice pitch and assibilation and hand gesticulation would still see him targeted.

And while part of being gay might not include a form of gender expression for some, it does for others. As you say, existing as a gay person is a varied experience because of the intersectionality of gender expression and sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure for some gay men, telling them to dress and participate in stereotypical activities in order to not be bullied in gay circles (which does happens, if I may speak anecdotally as a gay person) would be seen as equally heinous. You don't tell people to change something THEY consider an intrinsic part of their identity in order to accommodate anti-social behavior from some sociopath that you can't be bothered to put some effort into inhibiting. This is what the school did, and I'm inclined to be skeptical because we're nowhere near a post-gay stage in this country -- half the fucking country considers us morally inferior as well as our relationships less deserving of the respect they give to their own.

[Ghostbear]

Just for the record I have posted more factual data than anyone else, including a link to the same page you threw at me. You can be certain that I read it and I am not going to apologize to anyone.

Except most of the "Factual data" you have posted either doesn't apply or isn't actually factual. You have posted laws that don't apply, policies for different schools, and policies that do apply but don't mean what you say they do. The data you have presented has acted to remove accuracy from this discussion.

EDIT:

While the Administrator can alter the term of the expulsion that doesn't mean he can choose not to expel. I never said that the 1994 law applied specifically, I said it started the trend. Neither does it mention Zero Tolerance Policies on Drugs or Bullying or pick your poison.

See, you keep doing this, you introduce some facts, say they support your argument, then someone (frequently, myself) has to point out to you that none of your facts apply to this situation or mean what you think they mean. Then you backtrack and say you weren't using them as evidence at all. If you weren't, why did you bother mentioning and quoting them? Just to waste our time?

I don't know of any school system that I am aware of that has effectively ended bullying or any other student behavior. Name some, I would be happy to hear which ones. Cite any specific policy anywhere and support its efficacy.

I very specifically pointed out that finding solutions to this is not our job. We don't have need to have a better solution, we just need to note that the school's solution is wholly insufficient and that other school's solutions aren't wholly insufficient. It is not my job to come up with those better policies. Again: "You don't like it? Lets see you do better." is not a valid argument.

[Dream]

Your analogy sets up a straw man: the place you inhabit isn't an inherent quality about yourself. You weren't born into the house you'll live in for the rest of your life. Most people have a choice about where they live. People do not have the ability to choose their race, sexual identity, gender identity, or other inherent qualities about themselves, and this is why victim blaming is bad. You are shaming the victim for something they cannot change, as opposed to your house analogy.

I see you're talking about something no one else is. The kid isn't being told to not be gay, nor to be more white. He's being told (and supposedly only after other efforts have failed) to moderate his dress in acknowledgement of the dangers associated with wearing his preferred clothing. And yeah, if I'm paying for a multisensor, centrally controlled remotely monitored alarm system, and paying the regular charge to have it monitored, and regardless of that fact also remembering to keep lights on timers while I'm away from home, and closing curtains at night so people can't see valuables in my rooms, and installing and using heavy duty locks, I'd say that's a bigger ask than a kid not being able to wear a skirt 100% of all the time, but instead to wear pants during school hours.

NEITHER should be necessary. But that doesn't mean neither is a sensible course of action, either to take or to recommend to somebody else.

[M.C.]

Advising gay kids to stay closeted in high-school is just good advise, they can be awful awful places. But they should be able to be themselves (all kids really) and express themselves freely.

That is not what they were doing, because telling kids to stay closeted is a horrible thing to do. If the kid had a support network outside of school strong enough to support him being in the closet at school, then maybe, but that's very poor advice to give to someone who may be feeling shame or resentment towards their homosexuality.

They were advising that girls clothing is a bad idea. They were admitting that if the student wears clothes that makes them stand out, he'll continue to get targeted. That seems entirely reasonable.

Telling him someone to be "less flamboyant" goes beyond telling them to wear more gender-typical apparel. Flamboyant is often used as well for mannerisms, and as I said before making him wear masculine clothes would be akin to pig with make-up because his voice pitch and assibilation and hand gesticulation would still see him targeted.

I don't believe the school was asking him to be less flamboyant.

The school had been trying to help Young, who transferred there last year, Yarrell said, by recommending that he "tone down" his accessories.

He doesn't need to come to school in a sports uniform, there are a lot of gender neutral clothing out there. If you wear clothing that doesn't make you stand out, other kids might not be so afraid to hang around with you. No one wants to be friends with the "freak", even if that label is unjustified. If he is in a very large high school, then taking away a major point of difference makes him blend in a little better.