• xantoxis@lemmy.world
    1994·
    1 year ago

    I have a lot of questions about different parts of this title that I don’t understand, but I support him.

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      124·
      1 year ago

      Marc Tyler Nobleman was supposed to talk to kids about the secret co-creator of Batman, with the aim of inspiring young students in suburban Atlanta’s Forsyth County to research and write.

      Then the school district told him he had to cut a key point from his presentation — that the artist he helped rescue from obscurity had a gay son. Rather than acquiesce, he canceled the last of his talks.

      • Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
        111·
        1 year ago

        First of all thank you for saving a click. Secondly, Marc Tyler Nobleman is not just a Batman researcher, he is a symbol. What an absolute Chad.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      66·
      1 year ago

      Comic Book Historian would have been a better title. I thought “batman” might have been referring to an unrelated school or something.

  • Flambo@lemmy.world
    671·
    1 year ago

    Then the school district told him he had to cut a key point from his presentation — that the artist he helped rescue from obscurity had a gay son. Rather than acquiesce, he canceled the last of his talks.

    “We’re long past the point where we should be policing people talking about who they love,” Nobleman said in a telephone interview. “And that’s what I’m hoping will happen in this community.”

    They didn’t ask him not to “say ‘gay’”, as the title all but claims. They asked him to participate in the erasure of a relevant gay person from a story he was teaching to children.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      323·
      1 year ago

      I dunno, would he mention the artist had a straight son? Or is it just a son in that case?

        • bobman@unilem.org
          320·
          1 year ago

          What are you talking about?

          Was this guy hanged?

          This is the second reply you’ve made that doesn’t make any sense, lol.

          • stown@lemmy.worldEnglish
            142·
            1 year ago

            OP is making a point that the visibility of queer and other minorities in history and in public is more important than the visibility of straight/non-minority people. Their point was that non-minority groups aren’t hated and target for who they are unlike minority groups. It is important to display and teach about the humanity of different groups in order to prevent mistrust and violence against them by the majorities.

            If you really didn’t understand this then you should get your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              317·
              1 year ago

              Calm down, no need to resort to personal insults. Rule #1: Be civil.

              It seems the guy you’re talking about doesn’t understand my point. Here’s my other post on the matter that can explain it better for you if you’re also having difficulty: https://unilem.org/comment/1447121

            • bobman@unilem.org
              412·
              1 year ago

              Or just explain your case better? It seems you’re the one who doesn’t understand what I’m saying, based on your other reply.

              Lol. Not sure why you’re calling me a ‘dog.’ Let’s leave the personal attacks at home, eh?

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      1138·
      1 year ago

      Wait, was it a relevant person?

      It’s the son of the artist, right? Did the son have anything to do with Batman? Did the son’s sexual orientation have anything to do with Batman?

      What else is relevant about the son? Was he an artist? A writer? What did he do for a living? Did he have any relevant health disorders? Food preferences? Did he have any children?

      BROADLY SPEAKING, your sexual preferences are the least interesting or relevant things in any conversation, unless we’re considering dating each other.

      I don’t know the history of Batman so maybe it’s actually relevant, but my gut says it’s just not.

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    551·
    1 year ago

    He should have let himself be fired. Then he could have brought a lawsuit against the school district over the matter. The school district would have had to demonstrate their reason to fire him on the record. If the researcher received damages for wrongful termination, the taxpayers would know it’s their money that is being frivolously spent to support someone’s homophobic agenda.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      301·
      1 year ago

      Probably couldn’t get them for wrongful termination. At-Will employment is a bitch.

      But he could likely get unemployment for being terminated without cause, which is a different thing.

      • cricket97@lemmy.world
        311·
        1 year ago

        he was a one time guest speaker. you don’t get to claim unemployment for that. and he chose to cancel, not the school

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          7·
          1 year ago

          he was a one time guest speaker

          In that case, no reason not to walk.

          I knew he’d quit. I was just clarifying that waiting to be fired from a job isn’t useful from a “wrongful termination” standpoint because At-Will Employment means “wrongful termination” doesn’t really exist in any state except Montana. But if he had been an employee, he would have had grounds to collect unemployment if terminated without cause.