Was English class like this for you?

Confronting infants and young children with deviant sexual practices will lead to early sexualization and this leads to a shitton of other problems. Telling them that they are ill if they like to play with things of the other gender will lead them to kill themselöves with a 40 percent certainty. You either don't know the fuvk how bad things really are or you like where this shit is going.

It's disgusting and I'm a degenerate on Fedlife myself.

...

>I'm sorry that nobody cares about your classical liberal education anymore, it is just as ideological as any other form of education.
Yes, and? You miss the fact that there are objectively good and objectively bad ideologies out there.

Yours is one of the worst.

>t. kike
>t. soyboy
The absolute state of Veeky Forums. Why won't these people leave???

>about children being taught that homosexuality isn't the spawn of Sata
user, it's about about teaching homosexuality. I can't find it in any translation but it's shit like pushing them to questin their gender and parental wellbeeing, about in which way homos can "love" each other, how transitioning is a good thing, etc. You people are fucking naive.

And we are talking about children from 0,4 to 6. Children which shouldn't even know how sex works.

Queer theory is a religion that repackages Christian slave morality, substituting the crucifix for the rainbow and Christ for a pink haired 'marginalized' gemderblob

>complains about post-modernists finding power structures reflected in literature
>proceeds to complain about how post-modernists have formed a powerful corrupted structure used to indoctrinate children into post-modernism

so this is the full extent of peterson's wit huh

Yes, why won't you go back to /pol/ with your daddy peterson and your garbage posts?

>“There’s this part of parenting that has to be active, it can’t just be like waiting … for your child to come out as counter-culture,” Kym said.

>The next day Elliott asked for magazines to make a collage about things people should know more about, adding glitter and photos of Beyonce and trans actress Laverne Cox next to words like bodies, consent, racism, gender, and decolonization -- which they asked for help writing.

m.metronews.ca/#/article/news/halifax/2017/02/06/gender-nonconforming-kid-elliott-educate-pop-up-school.html

Gender dysphoria is a legitimate disorder that has tons of medical evidence. If we manage to detect and treat it as painlessly as possible and allow trans people to integrate into society earlier, we will prevent a lot of suffering and mental anguish. I know a lot of trans people and I sympathise with them - you should try some genuine human contact as well, maybe it will curb your irrational anger.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a complete non-issue by this point - are you actually still going on about the moral degradation caused by same-sex relations? Literally grow up.
All of these things are hyped up to an insane degree, as is the usual reactionary rhetoric. I'm truly sorry, but the cause of all social ills isn't to be found in marginalised groups which you dislike. I know it is difficult to accept and takes time, but reading some genuine history, social and economic analysis etc. might help dispel your illusions.

>Gender dysphoria is a legitimate disorder
Yes, it's a mental disorder which should be healed by making people confortable in their bodies, not cuttingthemselves and taking hormones which still lead to suicide.

> are you actually still going on about the moral degradation caused by same-sex relations?
You retards, we are talking baout infants to 6 year olds gender and sex are no issues at that point because they are still 6 years away from puberty. Dont you understand that pushing sex un kids which haven't yet evolved far enough fucks them mentaly up and makes them go nuts sexually? It's puhsing sex on them and making them question their parents, exactly what the kindergardens did under the iron curtain and the Stasi you uninformed retard.

Good lord, people really never learn.

>so many spelling and grammar mistakes
>all those baseless assertions
>ending in personal attacks

typical pol tard, too retarded to dig yourself out of the hole someone else dug you into

>Dont you understand that pushing sex un kids which haven't yet evolved far enough fucks them mentaly up and makes them go nuts sexually
[citation needed]
for further clarification, i'm explicitly asking for citations on the claim that merely talking to children about sex "fucks them up sexually"

People like this just regurgitate the jewish propaganda back. Do you know that jews were promoting this same stuff in Germany before they got purged? This is what they do to divide their host societies, it's nothing new.

>People like this just regurgitate the jewish propaganda back
says the guy regurgitating /pol/ trash-tier rhetoric almost verbatim
do you snowflakes have no self-awareness

I'm furious and not in my native language, but it says eno9ugh that those are your arguments against my case. Pathetic. Good thing you people dont get kids, I wouldn't want to see even your crotch droping gets fucked up and pushed into the hands of pedophiles. You all argue in favour of empathy but in reality you dont give a shit about the most vulnerable people, children.

>Gender dysphoria is a legitimate disorder
No it isn't.
>that has tons of medical evidence.
No it doesn't.
> If we manage to detect and treat it as painlessly as possible and allow trans people to integrate into society earlier,
There's no such thing as a "trans-person".
> we will prevent a lot of suffering and mental anguish.
I don't give a shit about the suffering and anguish of "trans-people".
>I know a lot of trans people and I sympathise with them - you should try some genuine human contact as well, maybe it will curb your irrational anger.
No thanks.
>Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a complete non-issue by this point
No it isn't.
> - are you actually still going on about the moral degradation caused by same-sex relations?
Yes I am.
>Literally grow up.
I'm older than you.
>All of these things are hyped up to an insane degree, as is the usual reactionary rhetoric.
No they aren't.
> I'm truly sorry, but the cause of all social ills isn't to be found in marginalised groups which you dislike.
Depends on the group. And they're not "marginalized".
> I know it is difficult to accept and takes time, but reading some genuine history, social and economic analysis etc. might help dispel your illusions.
I might say the same to you, but unfortunately you're a brainwashed biorobot not capable of human thought.

>muh iron curtain evil marxist boogeymen, giving children a different education is literally the holodomor
Oh please.
Luckily I actually live in an ex-socialist country, so I have a first-hand reality check against the utter bullshit which is hyperbolic western propaganda. Clearly you are not capable of rational discourse, so I won't even bother.

I was born in Poland and starved regularly as a child. My grandfather was offed. Let me guess you're on of those which were able to buy the good stuff and therefore think all was well back then because your familiy coluded against every one else.

Disgusting filth.

>Let me guess you're on of those which were able to buy the good stuff and therefore think all was well
are we talking about capitalism? i'm so confused

I have kids haha

Go back to /pol/ you mouth breathing retard

>outing yourself as a commie
I am not the least surprised.

My condolences on them.

nice name calling retard

At least they're loved, and I know they can spell

>nice name calling retard
Veeky Forums, what have you become.

nice name calling retard

>haha, multilingual europoor doesn't give a fuck about spelling the dumbest language on the planet on a taiwaneese bsaket weavin thread
You 56% is showing.

>agreeing that you're not loved

It's not too late, user, you can still find someone. daddy peterson won't be that one.

OMG the poor marginalized victims!so vibrant and wise! Can't wait for them to move in and enrich my culture
m.youtube.com/watch?v=CIsVGDq8nd8

Frog and Toad. Loved those books; they were pretty fun.
the text portion of your post is garbage, though.

How old do you people have to be in order to genuinely think that hating transsexuals, homosexuals and the jews makes you an edgy rebel persecuted by the liberal establishment? I honestly can't imagine these types have communicated with a variety of actual people and lived beyond the Internet.
I mean, I've met plenty of gay people, a few trans girls, and some were such incredible normies, even conservative catholics, that I can't even conceive of being some kind of homophobe, it's so irrelevant as a determing characteristic for a person. You people are so blind that you can't even realise that promoting hate for minority groups just pushes them to be counter-cultural.

>presumption of hate
>anecdot
It's nearly as if you don't even understand the context. Or anything for that matter.

>>presumption of hate
it's not a presumption

You don't understand the dynamic here. Jews hate whites so when they obtain power they divide and conquer by promoting non-whites, women, gays, trannies, and every other group that will insulate them and repeat their bullshit because they don't know any better. If you buy into this shit and take it seriously you're being taken for a ride.

I'm sure whatever you derive your positions from is not anecdotal at all and makes perfect sense.
Unfortunately for you, starting from a position that people shouldn't be killed/imprisoned/hated for whatever arbitrary characteristic you deem unacceptable, is the more reasonable assumption. You're the one who has to prove that homosexuality should be further marginalised from public space and brought away from children's eyes.

>Jews hate whites
Can't blame them

Fucking kill yourselves you absolute shitstains

Fuck off, red.

If this is the result of classical education then maybe we should really reconsider the whole thing, because something has gone terribly wrong.

So what country that your non-white ancestors didn't build are you currently living in and when are you leaving to get away from us?

And if the supremacist is somebody who aligns with you politically (meaning who the university tells who what is a good political alignment), it's a good book. It's a supremacist who doesn't align with you (once again, who you're told to align with), then it's a bad book.

>You don't read the book and try to understand what utility might be extracted out of it to guide you in your life. That's the old system. The new system is you read the book and you analyze it in terms of whose societal position of power it justifies.
Isn't it social justice deconstruction of a text?

There's nothing classical about it, it's a result of talmudic imposition as jews have been allowed to climb the cultural ladder in the west in the postwar era.

KYS

When's the last time you spoke to your mother or father, user? What do they think of your peculiar fascination with Hebrew culture? Do you get along with your family?

Yeah all that's fine. But for newbies to the JQ what you're seeing here is typical jewish psychopathogizing of anyone who knows they're bad people. It's a Freudian-esque method of projection.

Once you see behind their schemes its really funny seeing them unable to change their eternal pasta.

I worked in a german kindergarten and you're a dirty fucking liar.

the hell does it mean to "work in a german kindergarten"?

of course they don't. It would be funny if they didn't honestly believe the shit they spew.

As a chaperone? What possible other option is there?

Guys, I just wanted to know if you experienced this sort of thing in your English classes.
Wow, way to miss the mark.

You don't read books like Catcher in the Rye, The Odyssey, or Dante's Inferno and think "who's the supremacist?" or "how do these books prove white men are evil?" To do so is to completely ignore the meaning, historical relevance, lessons, and artistic merit of those books.

This whole method of reading is inherently flawed. It has nothing to do with who wrote it, or what the author intended it to be about-- that's the problem.

I think they actually do, "believe" in it in the literal sense. They don't really know much about this stuff, they haven't even thought critically of it, they just blindly believe in it.

If somebody ever comes along with facts and good arguments, their beliefs kind of crumble. Just about every right wing youtube channel out there has a segment when they go out into public and discuss issues with leftist college kids. It always follows the same script, leftist kid is dead set on their issues, and immediately crumbles and weakens their position they're confronted by actual facts.

what the fuck is kindergarten chaperone....?

are you fucking with me?

fuck off

No dipshit. Ah screw it, I'm sure it's a pointless typical euro job. I bet your night job is a consultant to something vague and undefinable.

Germany's left has its own tales of abuse. One of the goals of the German 1968 movement was the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive.

m.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

I'm unable to see them as anything but dogmatic aliens who hate me, their mentality, their obsession with self flagellation and victimhood it all seems completely alien to me

If you think the point of literature is finding ‘morals’ why are you on Veeky Forums?

Critical examination of literature, including asking the questions like ‘what does this tell us about the authors views about society?’ Is completely fair game in the study of literature.

That ‘old’ system you talk about never really existed. It sounds like you are really just mad about the ‘wrong’ morals being taught. Why is it the roll of schools to present books to kids as indications of what is right and wrong, reading stories to kids as moral parables.

For more than a hundred years, the terrain of literary analysis has shifted to sorts of formal analysis, to semiotics, to deconstruction, and to various critical lens; Jungian archetypes, Freudian or Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Feminism, Marxism, reader response, historicism etc. and beyond that to neopragmatism, cognitive criticism and so on,

You act like this is some dramatically new mode of looking at literature, but the idea of examining literature as a view into society, the relationships between men and women, between man and nature, man and government, worker and boss, man and his own psychology, and meta-reflections on how the author understands the world and see it reflected in writing, none of this is even remotely new, and to any person who cares about lit none of it should be shocking.

If you haven’t seen it yet, there is a free Yale course of YouTube about Lit Theory, it’s a fantastic thing that you ought to watch, you might be surprised by how common place everything you are freaking out about it.

>No dipshit.
So you're legitimately retarded. What do you think happens when kids get left at a kindergarten? Tell me.

>when kids get left at a kindergarten?

what....?

what the hell are you asking? Do kids generally just get left alone in an empty kindergarten...or something?

You know. It sounds a lot like you're beating about the bush, trying to say that you abduct kids for a living.

please go away

Literary criticism, has basically always been about a bunch of talentless failures writing works that nobody really reads about what good authors really mean in their works. Then insert whatever popular politics of the day are, and there you go.

What you're advocating is essentially high jacking a book away from the author and twisting it to fit whatever political narrative you want to push.

There's a book called "Postmodern Pooh." It parodies this exact problem by studying "Winnie the Pooh" under the veil of a post modern English education. This is why people say "the author is dead," because the author's actual intent doesn't matter to these people, only the perverted meaning weaseled out by the essayist matters, no matter how large the leaps in logic may be.

But the author's intent only matters historically, why should it dictate the interpretation of the text?
According to you, biblical commentary has always been post-modern, since various Christian sects have always read whatever they wanted from its verses according to their own situation. We don't get these "what did the author mean" analyses until late modernity.

there's a huge difference between saying that the symbolism of a certain scene is meaningful even if the author didn't intend it to be, and saying the author was obviously a hardened Nazi with child rape fantasies who would have supported the trump import tariffs.

>why should it dictate the interpretation of the text?
Because the author wrote the story. Maybe a good author will leave some things up to interpretation, because part of the fun of reading a book is that you are essentially conversing with the author.

This post modern system of interpretation, you are conversing against the author, you're talking to yourself and the author is just a vehicle for your own circle jerking.

>Biblical commentary has always been post modern
Biblical commentary wasn't academic, it was religious, and it was extremely problematic. It caused the great schism. Academic integrity didn't exist back then, but it does now.

Buddy, the author has been dead since the 60s. So yeah, I absolutely am advocating that. Call me old fashion but I do believe that it is the text that matters and I think that whole lot can exist in a text which authors don’t consciously intend. Any text can support a multiplicity of meanings, and the pursuit of a single definite meaning shows onl a very un/lit/ discomfort for ambiguity and uncertainty. Literature is not a physical science. What we learn from Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, is that there is a lot to man that exists outside the conscious mind. There are motivations of money, power, resentment, and sex that masquerade as other things, people reproduce prejudices they aren’t aware of, and they leave things in the text about their fantasies they didn’t intent.

Think of JK Rowling, saying now that this character is black, this one is a Jew, he’s gay, this one had AIDs and so on. Who do we believe? The author, or the text? Because an analysis of the text does *not* support the assertions of the author, and that’s why SJs have flipped on her, for trying to claim representation when none actually exists inside the text.

Again, please see the Paul Fry Yale series, there are multiple lectures on the notion of the author is dead.
Ironically it’s the newest wave of feminist and post-colonial authors and thinkers who are the biggest force against the ‘dead authors’, because their whole thing is about letting women, minorities etc be the ones to tell their own stories, which makes exactly *who* is writing often more important than anything that is written. The whole ‘read more women author, read more Muslim authors’, that’s a reaction *against* the Barthes and Foucault view of literature.

I don’t even understand your point. What does the second side of that mean? Like what? What do you think lit critics are doing?