I don't think there are that many piece of shit humans in this world, I can't recall ever seeing one on the NZ lemmy instance including you. I think the only thing I have said is that you could be a bit more inclusive, it's not that bigger deal, most people aren't.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Which is a weird thing to say because I never said anybody should be excluded from anything. It was you that wants to exclude maori words from school books.

[–] deadbeef@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

For about the fifth time, I do not want to exclude Te Reo from school books, I don't even believe the minister wants to do that.

This is what you said:

I am opposed to shaping our educational system to the lowest common denominator of students

This is pretty well the definition of not being inclusive.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You are asking for exclusion. Yon can't aim for the lowest denominator and ALSO to everyone else. This si what people are entry to explain. You are asking not for inclusion, but for privilege to by switched to YOUR CHILD instead of the others.

Yes they should be included, not by removing others.

I'm pretty sure here problem isn't your kid by now though.

Cheers.

[–] deadbeef@lemmy.nz 1 points 3 minutes ago

The child has to be struggling with reading to ever be issued an early reader to take home for homework.

If you are in reading recovery ( ~5 of my sons class ) you make heavy use of the reading resources and will probably go through all of the early readers, in all of the incremental stages.

Me and my son have read either one or two every night for the last year and a half.

It seems like I'm talking with people who are mostly clueless about reading education here and are all here for the rage bait headline.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 0 points 11 hours ago

For about the fifth time, I do not want to exclude Te Reo from school books, I don’t even believe the minister wants to do that.

This is clearly not true because you are defending and excusing this action. The minister absolutely wants to do it which is why she did it.

This is pretty well the definition of not being inclusive.

You should look up the meaning of that word.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What they said was they were glad the people involved on the kapa haka group were more inclusive than you.

You then flew off the handle at the minor slight. They then joined you afterwards.

You were doing great with the argument that the curriculum shouldn't be shaped by outliers. Simple, factual and not attacking the person - just debating the point constructively.

This appears to be a reading and comprehension issue (possibly complex dyslexia if there's an autism diagnosis that early on in the kids life?), you perhaps could have stuck with that? I dunno, you do your thing. I'm just pointing out how needlessly rude you were.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What they said was they were glad the people involved on the kapa haka group were more inclusive than you.

No they made a specific insult and said I was against inclusion of children with disabilities in kapa haka groups.

I’m just pointing out how needlessly rude you were.

I feel no need to be polite to people who hurl unwarranted insults at me and accuse me of being a bigot.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No that all happened after you questioned their education and called them sick.

Edit: read from here https://sh.itjust.works/comment/20376613

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I called her sick because she wants to deny students books with maori words in them because her child has a learning disability.

I never said kids with disabilities of any kind should be excluded from any kapa haka group or anything else, she made that accusation out of the blue.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

And look in your defence, they DID have a clumsily worded anecdote that was only tangentially related (and it took AGES to reveal the additional challenge these books created for their kid, was what they were getting at - I understand that).

I guess what I'm getting at is: attack their point - not the personality.

Needless to say, I'm over it...