Poll of the Day > Texas ELEMENTARY School Removes a HORRIFIC MESSAGE!! Is it SEXIST???

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gregory-Lincoln ELEMENTARY school in Houston has removed a sign that has caused an uproar and deemed SEXIST!!

Many expressed their horror, especially that it was put up at pre-teens and believed the quote was victim-blaming and perpetuating the women are responsible for men's actions

The quote has drawn controversy when Lisa Beckham tweeted that picture and blew the whistle on the horrific message and it has since gotten more than 100,000 views where twitter users are stunned by the message.

Do you think this sign is Sexist?

The horrific sign -

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F35F32A00000578-6075675-image-m-5_1534680516952.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F35F33100000578-6075675-image-m-7_1534680572470.jpg

Evil School -

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F360E0E00000578-6075675-image-a-31_1534681077722.jpg

Twitter -

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F35FF9200000578-6075675-image-m-13_1534680654445.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F35FF8E00000578-6075675-image-m-14_1534680664507.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F35FF8A00000578-6075675-image-m-15_1534680678691.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F35FF8200000578-6075675-image-m-16_1534680691213.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/08/19/13/4F35F33500000578-6075675-image-a-17_1534680743721.jpg
---

Full Throttle posted...

Many expressed their horror, especially that it was put up at pre-teens and believed the quote was victim-blaming and perpetuating the women are responsible for men's actions

No, that's never been what it means and it's a ridiculous spin on the saying.
---

Fucking stupid people.

It's simply "Act decent and people will be decent with you."
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's simply "Act decent and people will be decent with you."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Fucking stupid people.

It's simply "Act decent and people will be decent with you."

It's not though? You're thinking of "Treat others the way you want to be treated". This quote clearly puts the onus of acting properly on women.
---

I don't know about horrific but that's putting the responsibility of a dude's actions on a girl.
---

I like it, of course some dumb bitch doesn't get it and feels threatened by it.

GanonsSpirit posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Fucking stupid people.

It's simply "Act decent and people will be decent with you."

It's not though? You're thinking of "Treat others the way you want to be treated".

You're thinking of something else entirely. This is about the way people comport themselves, not how they treat others. While how you treat others can factor into it, that's only one part.

GanonsSpirit posted...

This quote clearly puts the onus of acting properly on women.

KStateKing17 posted...

that's putting the responsibility of a dude's actions on a girl.

Again, not really what it means; or, more specifically, it certainly doesn't mean what you're implying. And the concept is really the same for both genders.
---

Just for note; Men are pursuing women so men will modify themselves to get them, women are being pursued so if a man is being a gentleman, it doesn't mean she needs to meet the standard.

It's a double standard that notes female privilege.
---

Basically is a female hits a man. I can't be allowed to hit back in self defense because she is a wahmanz! Too bad they can't get a taste of gender equality without playing the victim and getting away with that shit too.

Yeah. Horrifying.

Fuck these people.
---

I don't know if I'd go as far as 'horrifying', but that statement shouldn't be up in an elementary school.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

I don't know if I'd go as far as 'horrifying', but that statement shouldn't be up in an elementary school.

Yeah, elementary students should be unchecked little pricks all day.
---

Fair, next

I don't even care if it's sexist or not, those quotes on walls are fucking stupid and should be covered up.
---

It's pretty minor sexism, but still, it doesn't seem appropriate for a school setting, anyway.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Fucking stupid people.

It's simply "Act decent and people will be decent with you."

If all responsibility for acting decently is placed on women, sure. Acting decently (adverbs, yo) is a nice ideal to perpetuate, but gendering it is just stupid and sexist. If you want to say "act decently and people will be decent with you," say that.

TaKun782 posted...

Basically is a female hits a man. I can't be allowed to hit back in self defense because she is a wahmanz! Too bad they can't get a taste of gender equality without playing the victim and getting away with that shit too.

"Hitting back" is generally not the most sensible course of action, since pointless retaliation is, well, pointless, but if you're going for equality then there's more than just "you hit me so I'll hit you" to consider. If you hit them harder than they hit you, then your response is not equal, and you can't claim to be acting on egalitarian principles.
---

But is it true? Oh it's damn true!

adjl posted...

If all responsibility for acting decently is placed on women, sure. Acting decently (adverbs, yo) is a nice ideal to perpetuate, but gendering it is just stupid and sexist. If you want to say "act decently and people will be decent with you," say that.

I addressed this above.

adjl posted...

"Hitting back" is generally not the most sensible course of action, since pointless retaliation is, well, pointless

It's not pointless, it's deterrence, literally the same reason why we haven't died in a nuclear apocalypse yet. You know what is pointless? Forgiving transgressions, it's entirely unproductive by definition and the opponent may be emboldened.

adjl posted...

but if you're going for equality then there's more than just "you hit me so I'll hit you" to consider. If you hit them harder than they hit you, then your response is not equal, and you can't claim to be acting on egalitarian principles.

That's perfectly egalitarian. It's equal response, not equal outcome. If you bite a lion, expect to get bitten right back and come off a lot worse.
---

well it's true
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I addressed this above.

You really didn't. You can encourage people to be decent without gendering it. That's really not up for negotiation.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not pointless, it's deterrence,

If a person attacking you is a legitimate threat, deter them by defending yourself (that is, properly neutralizing the threat, not just retaliating for retaliation's sake). If a person attacking you isn't a legitimate threat, then there's no need to deter them. That's logic.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's equal response, not equal outcome

If you know (or have good reason to believe) that a response will result in an unequal outcome, then you have no reason to consider it an equal response. That's logic.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you bite a lion, expect to get bitten right back and come off a lot worse.

I don't think making a comparison to a non-sentient, territorial apex predator is really helping your case (that is, that retaliation is an intelligent, reasonable response) here.
---

It's a stupid statement but the people getting outraged are more stupid than the statement was.

It instead should have said something more neutral like "Give others the respect that you would expect to receive".
---

adjl posted...

You really didn't. You can encourage people to be decent without gendering it. That's really not up for negotiation.

You can get a better result by directly addressing issues than crying about the general situation.

adjl posted...

If a person attacking you is a legitimate threat, deter them by defending yourself (that is, properly neutralizing the threat, not just retaliating for retaliation's sake).

You know what neutralises a threat? Demonstrating how much they will lose by fighting.

adjl posted...

If a person attacking you isn't a legitimate threat, then there's no need to deter them. That's logic.

All harm is a legitimate threat, and not responding is inviting further/heavier harm of undetermined value. Cut the problem at the root. That's logic.

adjl posted...

If you know (or have good reason to believe) that a response will result in an unequal outcome, then you have no reason to consider it an equal response. That's logic.

A 100% punch for a 100% punch is an equal response, all outcome differences is the latent class difference the attacker should've been deterred by prior to starting shit.

It's illogical to respond with equal force as you establish no deterring threat, that is violence for violence's sake, all you gain is a free hit to satisfy petty revenge.

adjl posted...

I don't think making a comparison to a non-sentient, territorial apex predator is really helping your case (that is, that retaliation is an intelligent, reasonable response) here.

Do you fuck with a lion? Does it need to fight you to keep peace between you and it? Point made.
---

faramir77 posted...

It instead should have said something more neutral like "Give others the respect that you would expect to receive".

As was stated earlier, it's not about action but presentation.

A more accurate representation would be "Be respectable and you will invite respectable conduct."
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You can get a better result by directly addressing issues than crying about the general situation.

But it's not trying to directly address issues. It's a slogan on the wall of an elementary school that reminds them to be nice to each other. Or, as it stands, reminds women that they're responsible for getting men to be nice to them.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You know what neutralises a threat? Demonstrating how much they will lose by fighting.

You have a terribly myopic understanding of self-defense.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

All harm is a legitimate threat

It really isn't. Do you take a chainsaw to your bed every time you stub your toe?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

not responding is inviting further/heavier harm of undetermined value.

If you have no capacity for extrapolative thinking, sure. For intelligent species, though, it's usually possible to make some reasonable guesses about how much harm will arise as a consequence of various courses of action, including choosing to do nothing or saying "dude, **** off" (intelligent species having language and all).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A 100% punch for a 100% punch is an equal response

Only if the denominator is the same. 100%*100N=/=100%*300N. Now you're being bad at math AND logic.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Do you f*** with a lion? Does it need to fight you to keep peace between you and it? Point made.

Except that we're talking about the conduct of the retaliator, not the instigator. Everyone agrees that the person who starts hitting people shouldn't do that. The question is how the victim/"victim" responds. You're citing a sub-sentient apex predator's response as though it justifies disproportionate violence from an intelligent human, which is really not making a case for disproportionate violence being a reasonable, intelligent response.

It's already been changed. Everybody can unclench.
---

they were offended by the word 'man,' next to the word 'woman.'

The alphabet people have no problem in the bathroom though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DK0aaLNGak" data-time="
---

Dumb quote. People defending it are worse.
---

wow a lot of closeted virgins who are bitter about women not giving them the time of day (or night) in this topic. but why am I surprised PotD is a cesspool of ignorance.

Seriously, it's not a "horrifying" message. But it's not a very good one and it's not really necessary either. If they wanted to put something up they should have said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but then people would be in uproar about that being non-secular, so then just put up "Be kind to others as you would want them to be kind to you". That or don't put up anything at all.

I don't know who thought this would be a good idea, or at least not think there would be backlash to it (either by students or social media).
---

That's not what it's saying, it's saying that if you get used by a whore then you're probably a whore

I think the thought derives from the fact that women are bitching about how theres no good men.

But in an elementary school? Not really appropriate message til highschool.

RoboXgp89 posted...

That's not what it's saying, it's saying that if you get used by a whore then you're probably a whore

If elementary school kids are getting used by whores, I think there are bigger problems than how ladylike they act.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

But it's not trying to directly address issues. It's a slogan on the wall of an elementary school that reminds them to be nice to each other. Or, as it stands, reminds women that they're responsible for getting men to be nice to them.

It reminds women that they have control over men's conduct that men do not have over women and women should do their part to maintain a more pleasant environment.

_AdjI_ posted...

You have a terribly myopic understanding of self-defense.

My view actually looks a step in to the future, what does yours do? It's an ideology, it's not a working practice.

_AdjI_ posted...

It really isn't. Do you take a chainsaw to your bed every time you stub your toe?

A stubbed toe is self-inlicted, and the attacker knows not to do that again and I know it. Pain itself is deterrence theory at work.

_AdjI_ posted...

Only if the denominator is the same. 100%*100N=/=100%*300N. Now you're being bad at math AND logic.

1 is the denominator, they are equal, 100N and 300N are the numerators. The outcome is different as they apply different amounts, but they both supply a single blow. Strike 1 is worth 100, strike 2 is worth 300.

Of course this all assumes that psychology is just straight maths.

_AdjI_ posted...

Except that we're talking about the conduct of the retaliator, not the instigator. Everyone agrees that the person who starts hitting people shouldn't do that. The question is how the victim/"victim" responds. You're citing a sub-sentient apex predator's response as though it justifies disproportionate violence from an intelligent human, which is really not making a case for disproportionate violence being a reasonable, intelligent response.

You have failed to display why a human would be wrong to deliver a tried and true methodology of establishing dominance to suppress aggressors. We are apex predators, apex predators respond to humans as higher creatures on the food chain to them.

Superior beings of any clade bring dissenters in line by showing the extent of their power, tell me how this isn't something appropriate for humans being fucked with.
---

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Fucking stupid people.

It's simply "Act decent and people will be decent with you."

If all responsibility for acting decently is placed on women, sure. Acting decently (adverbs, yo) is a nice ideal to perpetuate, but gendering it is just stupid and sexist. If you want to say "act decently and people will be decent with you," say that.

TaKun782 posted...

Basically is a female hits a man. I can't be allowed to hit back in self defense because she is a wahmanz! Too bad they can't get a taste of gender equality without playing the victim and getting away with that shit too.

"Hitting back" is generally not the most sensible course of action, since pointless retaliation is, well, pointless, but if you're going for equality then there's more than just "you hit me so I'll hit you" to consider. If you hit them harder than they hit you, then your response is not equal, and you can't claim to be acting on egalitarian principles.

I guess Ill just stand around while im being stabbed to death to while im at it. >_>

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It reminds women that they have control over men's conduct that men do not have over women

I take it you've never actually talked to a woman before if you think being polite and decent can't encourage her to do the same.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

My view actually looks a step in to the future, what does yours do? It's an ideology, it's not a working practice.

Your general philosophy is "they won't hurt you if they're afraid of you." That's all well and good, provided you can accurately predict and control that fear. A far more effective approach is "they won't hurt you if they can't hurt you," because then you can guarantee that control (and, by extension, you don't have to do anything if they can't hurt you). Disabling your attacker will much more reliably protect you than trying to intimidate them will.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

A stubbed toe is self-inlicted,

And could have been prevented if the object in question didn't exist. Why not take such steps to prevent such a grave threat to your personal safety?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

1 is the denominator, they are equal, 100N and 300N are the numerators. The outcome is different as they apply different amounts, but they both supply a single blow. Strike 1 is worth 100, strike 2 is worth 300.

You really are bad at math. 100N is the numerator in the expression I gave, but not in the calculation of the percentage in the first place (which is what I mentioned denominators in reference to). A 100N punch when one can exert a maximum of 100N is a 100% punch. A 100N punch when one can exert a maximum of 300N is a 33% punch. 100N=100N, ergo, 100%=33% if you account for the difference in denominators (maximum strength).

Simple math. Unequal punches are not equal.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You have failed to display why a human would be wrong to deliver a tried and true methodology of establishing dominance to suppress aggressors.

Because being intelligent allows for more nuanced risk assessment and negotiations, thereby expending less total effort, minimizing total injury, and maximizing total productivity. Pointless violence doesn't help anyone.

TaKun782 posted...

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Fucking stupid people.

It's simply "Act decent and people will be decent with you."

If all responsibility for acting decently is placed on women, sure. Acting decently (adverbs, yo) is a nice ideal to perpetuate, but gendering it is just stupid and sexist. If you want to say "act decently and people will be decent with you," say that.

TaKun782 posted...

Basically is a female hits a man. I can't be allowed to hit back in self defense because she is a wahmanz! Too bad they can't get a taste of gender equality without playing the victim and getting away with that shit too.

"Hitting back" is generally not the most sensible course of action, since pointless retaliation is, well, pointless, but if you're going for equality then there's more than just "you hit me so I'll hit you" to consider. If you hit them harder than they hit you, then your response is not equal, and you can't claim to be acting on egalitarian principles.

I guess Ill just stand around while im being stabbed to death to while im at it. >_>

And therein lies the key difference between justifiable self defense and pointless retaliation.