@Evilbeagle:

I honestly don't see any "examples" in any of your comments of where language hasn't affected reality -- I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, I just can't find them. Maybe I actually am missing something. And my comment about the N-word was a perfectly rational response to anyone who argues that words and labels don't matter. It doesn't suit your argument, though, so you disparage it (and me). Let's just say that I'm not crushed.

I do agree with some of your points: I think "African American" is often inaccurate (although I won't argue with anyone who wants to be identified that way). But your contention that the words we use to describe things have no bearing on our attitudes towards them is patently and demonstrably false. If I were to call my wife "Bitch" every day rather than "Sweetheart," you don't think that would color my attitude towards her? Words carry weight, and to deny that is to deny the entire history of human discourse. Yes, I understand that no one is talking about the difference between the words "bitch" and "sweetheart," but you (and other commenters) have taken this opportunity to make blanket statements about the effects of language -- so I'll respond in kind. Frankly, I don't think these road signs would bother me much if I were a woman on the crew, but we seem to be debating much larger issues.

From there, your last comment goes off the rails entirely. You don't want acknowledgment, only respect, but simple acknowledgment is the most fundamental form of respect. No one in this story is asking for special treatment -- only equal treatment. No one is asking for a pat on the back, or to be considered more deserving -- only equally deserving. No one is trying to become "the oppressor" (and you thought my earlier comment was prone to drama). Reading your comment makes it clear that, at some point, you decided to describe accuracy and equality as "special treatment" -- a term that creates the specific reality of your argument. How odd, and how ironic.

@Evilbeagle:
Those were "examples" of language not effecting reality? Honestly, I don't see any connection whatsoever.

@Tim Giachetti:
So we should still be calling African-Americans "n******" (there's one example) because words and labels are meaningless? The fact is, Tim, that the language we use DOES change our attitudes in a fundamental way.

@ted:
If someone, bigoted or not, has a problem with equality, they have to deal with it: don't expect me to change my behavior to accommodate them.

@Evilbeagle:
Are you actually responding to my comment? Because I don't see how your points (that discrimination exists, that culture is hypocritical, and that I am somehow fooling myself) have anything to do with my point (that language affects reality).

@ted:
Goodness knows we don't want to upset sexist, racist, and prejudiced people. It's probably best just to let them go unchallenged. Excellent idea.

@Evilbeagle:

If you don't think language changes reality, you're not paying attention. Our entire existence is colored by language. The first step in understanding something is applying language to it, and the words we choose have a fundamental effect on perception.

Adam, you really are a pain in the rear. Your claims that you post this stuff just because it's "newsworthy" and "neat" hold no water when you editorialize in the post -- and then comment ELEVEN times to defend yourself and criticize your readers. I wouldn't mind seeing a hundred anti-Bush posts here a day, but I find that sort of specious bullying really distasteful.

Lighten up, squeezed grapes, it's just a gumball machine.

I think NC Gal might take the prize here for the "Most Ill-Informed." Before you go out of your way to make more comments like that, NC, you should get to know a little more about homelessness. There is a tiny percentage (truly tiny) of the homeless population that chooses that lifestyle, but otherwise homelessness is nearly always associated with some form of mental illness, addiction, abuse, or some combination of the three. So instead of complaining about your lot, you should feel blessed that you have the ability to work, and a family to share your life with.

The fact is, few long-term services provided for the homeless are "free" -- they often pay some small amount for food or housing, or contribute through work, just as you described, and that obligation to pay generally increases with their ability to do so. I honestly don't think you could find a homeless person being "waited on hand and foot" if you tried.

Where are you getting this stuff? The teacher humiliated him and dressed him down rather than tactfully explaining? It’s fascinating that you’re able to infer so much information that isn’t even hinted at in the article. I’m happy to carry on watching you squirm your way through this little debate, but the point at which you start inventing evidence to bolster your opinion, I’m done. So, the last word is yours: knock yourself out.

And I think the fact that you find the phrase "disregarding the emotions of other people" so offensive says it all.

@Evilbeagle:

If you honestly don’t think that it’s rude for a kid to walk around a classroom passing out party invitations only to exclude two of the kids, well, I think you’re suffering from an acute lack of empathy. Yes, it’s the slighted kid’s choice to feel bad, but all of us have a choice in how we react to any insult: that never absolves the person doing the insulting. (And thank you for the detailed description of all the possible “disruptions,” but none of my comments have been based on the idea of anyone disrupting anything, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I don’t think that passing out invitations, or gathering them back up again, is much of a disruption either way.)

I agree that kids slight each other all the time, and it’s nothing to get all that worked up about (my complaint is really with the father) but I do absolutely think it should be dealt with if it’s done openly. Any kid who sees their teacher ignore an open insult in the classroom would have to think, “Huh, I guess that’s a fine way to act, the teacher sat right there and watched it and didn’t say a thing.” I don’t think the teacher just had a right, I think they had an obligation to deal with it: an obligation that extends to the kid with the invitations as well as the kids that were passed over. Ignoring crass behavior is not a character-builder, as you seem to think.

At the same time I don’t think the kid’s behavior is worth getting worked up over, I don’t think a teacher gathering up invitations is worth getting worked up over either – certainly not to the point where I’d start calling anyone a “rabid harpy” or a “tool” or accuse them of stealing the invitations, or of acting like a “spoiled child.” Yow. The article simply states that the teacher took the invitations, so it seems fair to say that you’ve got the same inclination for hysterical overreaction as the father of this kid.

And finally, I agree that kids shouldn’t make the team or star in the play if they aren’t good enough – and they shouldn’t get the idea that treating their peers poorly will get them invited to parties, either. Fair enough. But by the very same token, they shouldn’t be given the idea that openly disregarding the emotions of other people is acceptable.

@MrPumpernickel:

No, I don't necessarily expect the kid to think of that. That's why there's a teacher in the room: to teach those exact lessons (which is what the teacher did).

@Evilbeagle:

If a teacher sees a kid mistreating another kid, it’s appropriate for him/her to act directly, and not mince around – and if that means the whole class sees it, all the better: if they saw the slight, they should see the consequences so they understand the cause and the effect – and don’t just assume that the teacher condoned the behavior. And anyway, by your logic, the teacher isn’t a tool: the kid should have been publicly humiliated. I mean, why would you want to protect a child from humiliation? The sooner he’s humiliated, the sooner he’ll learn to deal with it. You don’t want him to grow up all coddled and soft, do you?

@MrPumpernickel:

Right, exactly: he didn’t have to invite everyone, if he did it privately. That is to say, he didn’t HAVE TO invite everyone. Several people keep asked, “What’s wrong with not inviting everyone?” Nothing! Just do it in a reasonably polite way! Seriously, it’s not that complicated.

And while I very strongly agree that we shouldn’t be overprotective of our children – that does seem to be an increasing problem here in the US and perhaps other places – I don’t think that means condoning blatant rudeness when we see it. The flipside of your argument (that we should let kids be exposed to difficult situations so they learn how to deal with them) is that it teaches other kids that acting like jerks is acceptable. There are plenty of injustices available to kids; we don’t need to actively condone the ones that occur under our watch. They are children, after all: it’s our obligation to protect them, just as it’s our obligation to tell them when they’ve screwed up.

@Evilbeagle:

I’m sorry, but it is rude for a kid to walk around an entire classroom passing out invitations, and skip two kids. If you don’t see that, then any argument about social engagement or empathy will be lost on you. But I do agree with your second point: the father’s reaction actually is a valid argument against PC extremism – but simple courtesy is not.

@Superunknown and Evilbeagle:

I understood Babymech's point, but perhaps you missed mine: I don't think the father should have taken the issue ANYWHERE beyond the walls of his own house. This is not an issue to take to the government. His son made the mistake, so he should deal with this son. And I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, but NO ONE IS SAYING THE KID HAS TO INVITE EVERYONE. They're saying that if he wants to exclude a couple of kids, that’s fine, just don't pass out the invitations in class.

I don't know if it was the kid's responsibility to avoid the snub (he is eight, after all) or the father's (he may not have know about it) but it was ultimately left to the teacher to control behavior in his/her classroom. I'm kind of amazed that you think there's something wrong with correcting rude behavior in a classroom. Teaching our kids how to be polite is the opposite of "keeping them in a bubble," it's teaching them how to engage in society, which is one of fundamental reasons we send them to school in the first place. And if you don't think we should teach our kids not to be rude just because the world is rude, well, ask yourself why the world is rude.

And your lazy PC argument is worn out. If you want to end up with a bunch of whimpering weaklings, have their parents complain to the government every time they feel like their kids have been slighted. It wasn't the kids who didn't get the invitations who caused the ruckus, after all.

@Evilbeagle:
You (and several others here, like MrPumpernickel) seem to be confusing the idea of inviting everyone, and inviting only the people you want in an acceptable way. I don't think anyone is saying the kid actually had to invite everyone. And there's nothing weak, soft, or PC about being good to other people: treating your enemies better than they treat you requires much more strength than just carrying on the cycle. I hope this kid learns that lesson now so he doesn't turn out like his father.

@Babymech:
I'm not really interested in parsing the Swedish legal code, although I appreciate the explanation. My point was just the father took this much further than was appropriate (that is, to Parliament).

@PK:
No one is making an issue of whether or not the kid has to invite the whole class. And while you're right, there's probably no easy way of resolving the dispute between the kids, that doesn't mean the teacher should just sit by and watch while they mistreat each other during class. The teacher gathering up the invitations was hardly "over-the-top"; whereas taking the resulting complaint to Parliament is pure absurdity.

@Babymech:
If the article is accurate, taking the issue to Parliament is exactly what the father did: he "lodged a complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman." And even if the complaint went through some other mechanism in the Ministry of Justice or whatever, it doesn't really change the fact that it's a gross overreaction. His kid screwed up and acted inconsiderately; he should take a little responsibility for that.