“Sammi was voted by the students, and some parents didn’t like that,” student Preston Johnson told Erie’s WJET. “The whole point of homecoming king and queen is the student votes. And we voted, and Sammi is our homecoming queen.”
Two days after the dance, a teacher organized a group to attend the school board meeting. It was standing room only, and the board braced for a long night of public comment.
Not one person spoke against her. The only speaker was a student, standing up for the dozens who had come to support Sammi.
sigh
This big scary entity that is making them “not allowed to voice their opinion” is literally a room of high school kids and some normal fucking teachers.
Anyone could have said whatever they wanted. The wording would have changed to “one person spoke against her. They were unable to defend their bigotry against high school kids so she’s still homecoming queen”
This isn’t some 1984 shit. You’re allowed to say disgusting shit about minorities. People are just allowed to boo you out of the room and call you a piece of shit for it.
You just said that anyone who may have wanted to speak out should be silenced.
Right. The social pressure of making someone persona non grata deters people from voicing their honest opinions. That’s why people do it and you encourage it.
If a teacher spoke out in opposition, there’s a very good chance they would lose their job. Can you admit that this would cause people who disagree to withhold their criticism?
I don’t believe that being booed out the room is the same as the concept of “silenced” that you seem to be gesturing at. I don’t think we’re seeing eye to eye on that part of this discussion. If you could enlighten me on what your assertion is there, I could perhaps be of more use in the discussion, but as it stands, we are going to end up digging into nitpicks.
As to your second paragraph: sure, I guess, but that social pressure is present in literally every situation involving more than one person. It is part of being part of a society. Is your assertion “saying that there were no critics voicing their opinion is an empty statement because critics were subject to the social pressures that surround any social environment, and because this social environment leaned predominantly pro-trans, it made it less likely that opponents would voice their opinions”, or something to that effect?
As for “that’s why people do it and you encourage it” I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t make assertions about my motivations first off, and secondly I don’t think anyone does it “because” it has that effect. Just as any individual has the right (or, should have the right, in some places) to voice their (potentially unpopular) opinion, others have equal right to push back against those opinions, and when the opinion is sufficiently unpopular, people don’t care to spend time listening to it. So they push back. This is functional society. I encourage people pushing back against bigotry - of course! Do I encourage it because it specifically makes the bigots stop speaking? Absolutely not. I encourage it because awful ideas and opinions should be met with opposition.
Re: theres a very good chance they’d lose their job if they spoke out against trans kids rights - mmmaaaaaybeee? I dunno, the USA lets bigots get away with a hell of a fucking lot. You and I can both only speculate, fortunately.
I guess I’d just like to clarify what your point is.