But think of all the hallway glaring and stress she could have enjoyed! Kids love that kind of crap, especially while they’re going through puberty, in a relationship, doing projects and taking tests and sorting out all the other petty dramas that come with being young (okay, and old).
Cat Fight–yeah, the whole “maybe Constance loves to start drama” hypothesis makes me think of the people who think that people just decide to go gay. Why would any teenager knowing the teasing and stress that accompanies coming out decide to be gay if it was a choice?
That’s more or less correct.
Because that’s one of the more damning parts of this. Combine that with her saying she would have accepted a written note that would give her permission, and you get a very big idea that she was doing it all for herself.
And when you do something that hurts someone else for your own benefit when there are other options, that makes you a selfish jerk. I’m willing to grant that her jerkiness was due to her youth. But to actually be proud of her is too much.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. We just had a pit thread with Chimera, where I actually argued the opposite, that someone being jerkish to you shouldn’t matter, if you’re the one who is wrong. The majority of the people there seemed to disagree with this. They claimed that the way to be helped is to be polite, and that, if you aren’t polite, you get what you deserved.
I don’t see why you can’t understand that same thought pattern here. The way the process was handled was not that best. And some people are going to be resentful of it. Like I said, the only reason I’m not is her relative youth. And my naive optimism that people are ultimately trying to be good.
And, unfortunately I have to say this on this board: I don’t begrudge her for doing what she did. But I acknowledge that it was for selfish reasons, and I understand some people who would be offended by this.
It does bother me a bit that she is getting so much praise, adoration, and even perks from it, as I think more peaceful, less rushed, less hurtful selfless protests should be rewarded far more than selfish ones.
Finally, I have to comment on Freudian’s last comment: Shut up with the strawmen that indirectly calling people who value politeness as homophobic jerks. You may not choose to be gay, but you do choose how you fight for gay rights. If you choose wrongly, people are going to blast you for it.
Yes, I agree.
Oh, wait. Did you mean damning for Constance? Because I don’t see how that works.
You’re right. The school didn’t have to cancel the prom, they could have just reversed the discriminatory rule. That pretty clearly makes them selfish jerks.
Oh, were you talking about Constance again? Hmm. I’m afraid I don’t see how this relates to her at all. What other options did she have? Other than, “Keep her mouth shut and not complain?”
So, what changed your mind on that for this particular subject?
I gotta say, it’s kind of troubling that that optimism applies only to the school, and not the student. I mean, on one hand, we have a school, with a written policy of discrimination, and which is actively hostile to students who express non-traditional gender roles. On the other side, we’ve got a teenaged girl who wants to go to prom with her girlfriend, and asked for permission to do so five months in advance. To which the school responded by canceling the prom entirely. And it’s the* school* which gets the benefit of the doubt, while the girl against whom they are actively discriminating is the selfish jerk?
Dude, that’s all kinds of messed up.
I vigorously dispute that wanting to be treated equally constitutes any form of selfishness.
You left out “less successful.”
The problem is, the only person in this story whom you’re expecting to be polite is the person being discriminated against. Because discrimination? Pretty fucking rude, when you get right down to it.
So, yeah, I can see why someone might question your motivations, when your values seem to be so selectively applied.
In what universe is wanting the individuals whose rights are being trampled on to be quiet so they don’t upset people who want a party polite? Constance may have disturbed people but the people she was pissing off were if anything ruder.
Thanks, Martini. You’ve just invalidated your argument for us.
I doubt we were ever going to agree on the subject anyway, FWIW.
Considering what you just agreed to, you’re right.
Exactly how does my argument that people protesting things shouldn’t inconvenience others invalidate my argument that people protesting things shouldn’t inconvenience others?
Your agreeing that people should only protest discrimination when it doesn’t inconvenience the discriminators just sort of invalidates anything you have to say regarding civil rights at all, really. Rosa Parks should have just moved to the back of the bus instead of inconveniencing that poor bus driver.
That’s not really the same thing, as it depends on the nature of the discrimination being protested against, and personally I feel that protesting you, as a woman, can’t wear a tux to your school formal isn’t important enough to cause those sorts of problems. Being told “You can’t go at all because you’ve got Teh Gay” would warrant that sort of protest. Being told “You’re welcome to come, but we expect you to abide by local community standards which involve appropriate dress” is a totally different kettle of fish to Segregation.
But since you don’t care what I think, and there’s no debate in this thread, we might as well see if a Mod will close it…
The rights of the few outweigh the comforts of the many. Thank God for our Constitution and thank God that the courts descended on this fucking school like a pack of vultures.
:rolleyes:
As a general rule with the broadest possible interpretation, I disagree.
Come on. You lot have spent most of this thread gushing over this woman and praising her to high heaven, have roundly denounced and chased off anyone who offered a divergent opinion, and have told the only other person who stuck around that their opinion is invalid. At least acknowledge that you’re not interested in hearing anything from anyone not completely agreeing with the majority views in this thread.
I’m not just disagreeing with you here- you’re wrong. This is the purpose of the Constitution, to protect us from people like you.
I don’t think it’s actually possible to be “wrong” on a subject like that; just to have differing opinions on the subject. But I think we can agree to disagree and amicably leave it that, perhaps?
You’re wrong again. It is possible to be wrong about this. Here, I’ll provide you an example:
You.
The Constitution exists to protect our rights.
The time and place is always now. It’s pretty fucked up that some kids dance is more important than social progress.
Isn’t this the Starving Artist position?
I maintain I’m not “wrong” on this issue. There isn’t a “right” or “wrong” on it. Like I said, we’re not going to agree on it, so it’s probably best to leave it at that. I’m being civil and conciliatory about this, and you’re being… well, whatever it is, it’s not civil and conciliatory.
Also, I don’t live in the US, so the Constitution doesn’t exist to protect my rights. And there are probably a lot of people in the US who feel the Constitution doesn’t exist to protect their rights, either, but it’s not a subject I’m interested in debating at this time.
I’m aware. Australia, right?
Anyone who lives in the US and doesn’t think the Constitution exists to protect their rights is fucking stupid.