Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

This isn’t Afghanistan. Your infantile puritanical sexual hang ups aren’t law. I’ll say it again, if you want Shariah law, move to Afghanistan.

I read more risqué literature in 6th grade….granted my school had us reading at college level by then. What I know is that people who can’t handle this by high school are the ones with the problem. Southpark goes WAY farther, REN and Stimpy, on Nickelodeon, went WAY farther, Family Guy on Fox goes WAY farther. Not to mention the internet giving access to hard core German porn to any 7 year old means frank discussions about sex need to happen before they ever log on. If this mention of sex gets you in a tizzy, you are woefully unprepared for life in America.

Most high school kids are engaging in sex acts like those described…but you’re upset they might read about them? So delusional, bob.

Since you’ve never passed even a grade school creative writing class, you have no idea what is appropriate. In a high school college prep class, this is totally tame stuff.

You know it, everyone knows it except puritanical deviants who hate sex and incels who are afraid of sex or pissed at those who get to enjoy it.

So....Has Bob lost his little voice?!

Come on Bob, you're an expert here....you're not going to explain how you don't really have it 100% backwards? You're not going to explain how even though this is your education and career, the one topic you think you know, you think you HEAR the beat first, weeks before you SEE it, even though all literature (including the instructions on Doppler machines) says it can be seen as a near microscopic twitch at 6 weeks+- and only heard after 12-20 weeks with special dopler listening equipment?

I've never seen you admit a mistake, so I expect to not hear from you for days, then on a different topic, hoping this thread fades into obscurity. What a sad way to live. Very Trumpy. Scream to the high heavens that you're right, you're experienced, that all the other Slim Shadys are just imitating, then when proven wrong again, move on to the next outrageous claim and never, ever look back at your trail of failed ploys and plots, never admit you were mistaken, and accuse anyone bringing it up of changing the current subject...which is exactly what you're doing, changing the subject to avoid admitting you're w-w-w-wrong.

There Is No Art In This White House


By Elayne Griffin Baker

There’s no literature or poetry in the White House. No music. No Kennedy Center award celebrations. There are no pets in this White House. No loyal man’s best friend. No Socks the family cat. No kids’ science fairs. No times when this president takes off his blue suit-red tie uniform and becomes human, except when he puts on his white shirt-khaki pants uniform and hides from Americans to play golf. There are no images of the first family enjoying themselves together in a moment of relaxation. No Obamas on the beach in Hawaii moments, or Bushes fishing in Kennebunkport, no Reagans on horseback, no Kennedys playing touch football on the Cape.

I was thinking the other day of the summer when George H couldn’t catch a fish and all the grandkids made signs and counted the fish-less days. And somehow, even if you didn’t even like GHB, you got caught up in the joy of a family that loved each other and had fun. Where did that country go? Where did all of the fun and joy and expressions of love and happiness go?

We used to be a country that did the ice bucket challenge and raised millions for charity. We used to have a president that calmed and soothed the nation instead dividing it. And a First Lady that planted a garden instead of ripping one out. We are rudderless and joyless. We have lost the cultural aspects of society that make America great. We have lost our mojo, our fun, our happiness. The cheering on of others. Gone. The shared experiences of humanity that makes it all worth it. Gone. The challenges AND the triumphs that we shared and celebrated. The unique can-do spirit Americans have always been known for. Gone. We have lost so much in so short a time.

Vote Democratic all the way down the ballot on November 3rd.

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

What's up with the people in the background and their trunk full of Jehovah's Witness literature?

"I bet it sounds like a chainsaw"

The literature says it is "all-electric". The pilots are not wearing heavy duty ear protection in the video. I submit that It probably sounds more like a large flock of hummingbirds.

I took a Joyce Major Authors class in college (about 15 yrs ago). We read Dubliners and Portrait in their entirety, and probably about 40% of Ulysses and excerpts from Finnegan's Wake.

For some literature, you really need to do homework to appreciate fully. You'll miss a ton if you don't know history and current events that people were generally aware of at the time. And, even when you do that work, sometimes you still won't get it all - which is how I see Finnegan's Wake.

My experience reading (some) Ulysses was great, but it depended on the professor who would assign a chapter for homework and then spend the entire class going through it with us. We were Lit majors, so we knew The Odyssey, but some references were completely over our heads. Like, Bloom is humming advertising jingles throughout the book - and these weave together with other literature references, sometimes making a joke about popular culture, sometimes taking a swipe at literature/history. I got maybe 10% of the significance during my initial, solo reading.

My mid-term paper was a super close reading of one small section (I think it is in chapter 4) where Bloom is in the tub, contemplating how his dick and balls look like a lily pad as they are floating in front of him in the tub.

the alt right are a vile,vulgar and grotesque display of racist ignorance all gussied up as "patriots",as "white nationalists" whose only concern is the safety and prosperity of america.

pffffft../fart noise.

so would you PLEASE for the love of fucking CHRIST allow these nimrods to hold their little rallies,their little marches.let them speak and speak and speak.....

because,like anything..bad ideas have a way of falling into the shitter when those ideas are shoved into the open.

there is a REASON why we haven't heard from these shitbags for almost 35 years,and it ain't because somebody threw a punch,sprayed some mace,or drowned out their voice.

it is simply because we gave them a mic.
that's it..we let them talk,let them march,let them hand out their literature.

this ain't rocket science people.

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

jmd's theory sounds plausible.

I've also heard the interpretation that since she is a full body prosthesis, it is meant to illustrate the detachment she has to her sexuality which sounds plausible although I hate to read too much into literature.

Might just be titillation, Japan is certain not shy about injecting sex into its anime. According to here, the manga series creator had a history of sexualised manga prior to GitS:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/1fl864/tactile_cacti_in_ranime_explains_why_nudity_in/?sort=confidence

Doesn't Netflix have Dagon and Necronomicron: Book of the Dead? I looove John Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy and The Mist RULES! Frank Darabont has also made many a Stephen King flick (Shawshank especially).

Off the top of my head, I would say HP Lovecraft isn't simply about madness driving horrors, it's biological horror, rather than supernatural. So almost anything by David Cronenberg, a lot of Japanese and Korean film, such as Akira, Uzemaki, The Ring movies, (which is based upon a Japanese folklore, but in modern times became biological horror, the Ring is actually a hybrid biological, technological virus), etc.

Also, the Matthew McCant-spell-his-last-name's True Detective breeches the Lovecraftian realm on a subtle and then not so subtle way in the end, such as the concept of "black stars" in a constant daytime of white background. I would say it's pre-Lovecraftian mythos from authors in the 1800s writing nihilistic almost biological horror, more just heavy uncomfortable writing. I can't recall the primary author who inspired Lovecraft beyond Bram Stoker's The Lair of the White Worm.

Anyway. I love horror, thrillers, suspense, nihilism, pulp and gothic literature.

"How you read this report is going to be clouded by how you feel about pot in general." Bingo.

No no new science here, though. No new studies. Just re-re-reviewing existing literature.

"We know almost nothing about the medicinal effects of smoked marijuana."

If that's true... then how much do "we" know about the effects of raw cannabis, complete with it's non-psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinolic acid? The large scale, peer reviewed method works far, far to slowly to be of any real use. It is too dependent upon those with enough financial funding to be considered an authority. If "we" finally perform the "right" study on cannabis, will that magically undo nearly 100 years of unjustified criminalization, untold millions of needless deaths, and pain and suffering?

the left won the moral argument decades ago,now a small cadre a shrieking harpies has taken over to....ok..i don't know WHAT they are trying to do,because everytime i try to speak to one of those snowflakes,they spray me with pepper spray,call me a rapist and run to their safe space.

or they tell me that i am not entitled to an opinion,because i am a hetero-white-male.

not saying a discussion with someone on the ultra right fares any better.either they want to share their adoration of their corporate jesus..joel olsteen..or they are constantly trying to berate me with neo-fascist literature,and show me just how patriotic a super patriot like them REALLY is,and then tell me why they couldn't join the military due to horrible bunions.

and of course one mention of muslims and they wet themselves.getting sick of loaning out my extra clothes because their bladder gets weak at the mere mention of brown people.

for years we have watched the left lose their way,and get lost in an ocean of rhetoric and faux outrage,and the same has happened with the right.

the extremes have taken hold of the megaphone,and are trying to shout each other down with their own sanctimonious self-righteous moralizing.

so the left is in the corner picking boogers and the right has gone fucking insane.

i'm telling you guys...
trump is not the disease...
he is a symptom.

our country is very very sick right now.

and i fear it is only going to get worse.

i predicted when trump won that he would rival bush in his ineptness and bungling buffoonery.well here it is a month into his presidency and i think i can say with some conviction:i was wrong..it is going to be so much worse than bush.

i need a drink...

What he's talking about here is "cliche", but cliche's have themselves become so cliche, it's no longer effective to use that term to describe them.
This same phenomenon is found extremely widely in literature and music. I stumbled onto this following college, after being trained to have a critical eye for creative work, when I found myself hating everything that humans produced but not understanding why.
My personal theory is that 1) we've not yet learned to teach creators how to identify and cultivate truly unique ideas, and 2) the structure of our current systems for fostering creative work require said work to appeal fundamentally to the largest possible audience, which is easiest when a universal language (visual, auditory or written) exists.
We're trained to build on existing ideas, which is critical for success, but not how to reject established ideas and instead find new ones that are capable of maintaining familiarity, or communicating their core concepts without need of educating the audience.
It's an interesting evolution of process that I'm sure we can find in other areas of the human experience, beyond the field of creative media.