Last I checked he's been linked to Laure Ferrari. Let's go on a wikipedia adventure:
Laure Ferrari (* 6 October 1979, Épinal, France) has been a close associate of former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, and has been working for several right-wing to far-right political organizations and parties, including the French nationalist party (Debout la France). Ferrari was head of the Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe (IDDE), a Eurosceptic think tank, which was accused in 2017 of having illegally diverted public money to the benefits of UKIP.[1] Ferrari was also founding member of "The Mouvement," together with Mischaël Modrikamen and his wife Yasmine Dehaene-Modrikamen,[2] which in 2018 was joined and promoted by Steve Bannon.
Mischaël Modrikamen (born 22 February 1966)[1] is a Belgian right wing politician and lawyer. ... In March 2015, Modrikamen was invited on an official visit to Russia by the Russian government and met officials at the Duma. Modrikamen, himself a strong believer in the transatlantic alliance, nevertheless announced that "we" should find some accommodation with Russia on the Crimea and Ukraine crisis. ... Modrikamen is the only Belgian political leader to have endorsed Trump, and this from the early beginning of his campaign among Republican contenders.
Reuters reported on October 31, 2018, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting a "wide-ranging" investigation of Bannon's activities during the campaign, including knowledge he may have had about any contacts between Russia and two campaign advisors, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, as well as his role with Cambridge Analytica.[148] ... In August 2020 members of the senate intelligence committee told the DOJ they believed that Bannon, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr. may have misled them with their testimony about Russia investigation. ... Bannon has defended Trump's ties to and praise for Russian president Vladimir Putin.[357][372] He expressed a belief that traditionalists see Russia as an ally. Bannon said they "believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he's trying to do it in a form of nationalism—and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country. They want to see nationalism for their country" rather than a "pan-European Union".[372] According to the book War for Eternity, Bannon met notorious Russian ideologue Aleksandr Dugin in Rome in 2018 to advocate closer relations between the United States and Russia, as well as Traditionalist philosophy ... [etc. etc. etc. etc.]
It's disturbing how much evidence exists that all these right wing parties and politicians are Russian shills, yet it somehow seems to keep escaping common knowledge.
As it says in the article, he's been designated a PEP because he allegedly took money from the Russian government. He denies this but hasn't sued the person making the allegation. Even in his rant on GB news he lists Ukraine first as a potential state known for bribery. He excuses Russian actions at every turn, it's clear he's getting something from them.
He denies this but hasn't sued the person making the allegation
Setting aside the issue of whether-or-not he has received money, I don't think that it's a great idea to make the expected norm for someone to sue someone else if they're innocent of something that someone claims that they did. Kind of results in everyone running around with lawyers on hair-trigger.
Between normal people, or even minor celebrities, I would absolutely agree. But Farage is a notable entity in politics and journalism, one would hope that being accused of corruption, bribery, and treason would be ruinous for such a career. That is absolutely the sort of thing you would sue over, if you believed you had a good chance at winning.
We’ve made enough questionable foreign policy decisions over the centuries, I think we should make him the live-in governor of the British Antarctic Territory. Or not, he’ll probably somehow start a culture war between the Emperor and Adélie penguins.
OK so what if people leave them alone, and let them get on with their lives, but refuse to use preferred pronouns? No obsessing, no talking about a man can’t become a woman what is a woman what are you changing into if you’re already a woman, end all that talk, but people that disagree just don’t say things they think aren’t true? Would that work?
Does it matter? They just want to be left alone, they’re being left alone. The opinions of people they don’t even want to interact with have no bearing on their lives, so long as they’re genuinely being left alone. No laws against being transgender, no discrimination against transgender people in hiring or whatever, no harassment, but some people are going to use pronouns based on sex instead of gender because they personally don’t buy it. Is that OK?
Its irrelevant for this topic of discussion. Pronouns are a linguistic element with already clearly defined rules, proper nouns are chosen and have always been chosen. To answer you I’d say calling someone by some name other than theirs to be disparaging is not OK, referring to someone using a pronoun corresponding to their biological sex is perfectly OK.
I get what you mean, but the analogy does not work so well. Names are inherently individual. We got used to know hundreds of them. So when you’re meeting a new person, you expect to learn a “new” name just for that person. Likewise, most people don’t make a fuzz if you get their name wrong the first couple of times. It’s something which has to be asked, and learned.
On the other hand, gender is mostly inferred, and we used to use only two of them. So when you’re meeting a new person, you’re expected to already know the correct gender. Likewise, most people react insulted if you misgender them, even if only once. It’s something you’re supposed to just know.
My point is, many people have a strong social training to correctly guess the gender of a person before talking to them. To suppress this automatism and replace it with an active ask-individually-approach can be stressful, although we have a similar scheme with names already.
So if someone decided you were trans and started calling you by the wrong pronouns, you'd be ok with that?
Like if they personally just don't believe your presented gender and want to publically harrass you about it, are you allowed to put up a fuss in this scenario of yours? Or is that OK?
I don’t particularly care. It’s not really harassing me, when they address me they’d say “you”. They’d be doing it in conversation with someone else. I wouldn’t hang out with someone that did this, but it wouldn’t make me angry or anything, it’s literally not my problem at all, I know who and what I am.
Being an asshole was never forbidden. I can call a cis man a she all I want. Just because it isn’t illegal doesn’t mean that there are no consequences. Like people will just disassociate from me and my boss might fire me for bullying.
What do you mean by “consequences”? You want to punish people for believing a man can’t be a woman, even if they don’t go around harassing transgender and calling them names and fucking with their lives?
Intentionally misgendering someone is a dick move and generally people don’t want to hang around dicks. So first consequence is you’ll have other dicks for friends. Except, they’re dicks, so probably not gonna be very good friends each other.
I also hope you are self employed cuz intentionally misgendering people in the workplace is not a good look either. Better hope no one in earshot has a trans friend or family member.
No one’s saying you can’t be Your Best Inner Bigoted Self. We’re just saying the rest of us think it’s ugly and weak minded.
Alright, so you’re OK with leaving alone people who use pronouns to refer to biological sex, you don’t want to be their friend or whatever but you leave them alone, don’t harass them, don’t try to get them fired and if they get a job somewhere that doesn’t care then fine, leave them alone?
I never said people should be punished for thinking that. If people aren’t harassing or bullying people they aren’t being assholes.
Also consequences doesn’t just mean punishment. If someone is being an asshole by constantly misgendering a trans person on purpose and people don’t want to hang out with them anymore because of that behavior that’s a consequence but not a punishment.
So you’re OK with that? Not personally associating with people that use pronouns to refer to biological sex, but let them be themselves and do their thing and associate with who they want?
Yeah, but it’s not without contention. Some people believe it should be illegal to use pronouns in reference to someone’s biological sex. I’m just asking people if they’re OK with it, if they like that, to distinguish from people who do that and people who harass and berate transgender people. When someone says “they just want to be left alone” I’m trying to get whether they view that distinction as valid or not.
Edit: This is from a US perspective despite the article.
Should a teacher be required to call a child by their preferred pronoun? Of course; the child has no choice in the matter of attending school, and forcing a child to endure constant humiliation at the hands of their steward is an insane thing to require.
Should it be illegal to misgender someone on the street? No, we have the freedom to speak our mind in this country. If one puts themselves out there as a bigot though, they need to be prepared for the social repercussions of that speech.
Should it be illegal to misgender a coworker? Consider a situation where you start a new job. Your coworker starts calling you “cuck” over and over again. You tell him that you’re not a cuck, but he says that you look like a cuck, so that’s what he’s going to call you. You go to your boss, and tell them that your coworker is being disrespectful, but he says that he’s not going to get between the two of you about personal identity issues. There is a case for a lawsuit for creating a hostile work environment, and it’s a civil matter at that point.
The most concerning question is: why is it so important to you to be an asshole to other people?
The interesting thing about pronouns is that the only pronoun used to directly address someone is not gendered, it’s “you”. So it is not actually possible to directly misgender someone.
The words “he” and “she” aren’t slurs. Comparison to the word “cuck” don’t make any sense. Should a job require someone to use preferred pronouns? Well I go back to what I was discussing about free association, if they want to sure, if they don’t that’s OK too, but going after a workplace without such a requirement takes things a bit farther than just wanting to be left alone.
And as far as teachers, I actually don’t think kids should be forced to go to school, so that would really be a different issue. If they’re old enough to determine their gender they’re certainly old enough to educate themselves or determine if they even want an education.
If you are intentionally misgendering people, then yes. Yes, you are. You’re actively doing something that somebody asked you not to. You’re making their identity about you. It’s ridiculously self-absorbed.
The interesting thing about pronouns is that the only pronoun used to directly address someone is not gendered, it’s “you”. So it is not actually possible to directly misgender someone.
Another thing you’re wrong about. “Them” is a pronoun. “He” and “she” are pronouns that directly address someone if you’re talking to a third party with the person in the room; this is really not that hard.
The words “he” and “she” aren’t slurs. Comparison to the word “cuck” don’t make any sense. Should a job require someone to use preferred pronouns? Well I go back to what I was discussing about free association, if they want to sure, if they don’t that’s OK too, but going after a workplace without such a requirement takes things a bit farther than just wanting to be left alone.
Pretend that the coworker was misgendering you as a cis person instead. The argument still stands. Are they creating a hostile work environment? We have laws about that.
Why is it important to protect the bigot’s livelihood but not that of the person being misgendered?
And as far as teachers, I actually don’t think kids should be forced to go to school, so that would really be a different issue. If they’re old enough to determine their gender they’re certainly old enough to educate themselves or determine if they even want an education.
Fortunately we still educate kids in this country, so I don’t understand the relevance here.
Well that’s good, I 100% agree with you. But judging by the votes I’m getting for asking this question, I don’t think most people that support the transgender movement do.
Why would they think I’m an asshole? I have not misgendered someone, I have not even stated my opinion on that. I’m just asking, if that’s the compromise would you all be OK with it.
You know that there have always been effeminate men and masculine women, right? They might not even be trans, they just look close to the other gender. You’d still be an asshole for calling them the wrong gender, why would trans people be any different?
This requires some obsession on the part of the person who would have to try to learn everyone’s gender and sex just so they can purposefully identify and misgender this trans person.
That’s only how it feels, as you only notice it at all on people where it is “obvious”. And even then, people get it wrong, cis people have been harassed by transphobes often enough. Just be nice.
No it’s designed to gain support from ignorant bigots who have nothing better to do than think about other people’s genitals all the damn time, but are completely incapable of actual learning anything that isn’t shoveled down their throat by a far right psychopath who stands to gain from what they’re saying.
Clown fish start life as males, and become female in adulthood. Gobies can switch back and forth between male and female. So far, we know of maybe 500 species of fish that can change sex.
I understand people are not fish, but I'm not sure we should be so quick to declare something about people "can't be changed" with enough time, knowledge and science. Sex and gender are both complicated systems with lots of opportunity for unexpected variations affecting seemingly unrelated parts of a person.
It's even possible for your body to have more than one set of chromosomes, it's called Chromosomal Mosaicism and is detected in around 1-2% of pregnancies. Not all of those pregnancies make it full term, and not all mosaics are retained by the foetus, but in a world of billions of people it still ends up being a lot of people who are sexually diverse.
Biology is not simple. Do not underestimate the weird things your body can randomly surprise you with.
Most people generally assume we’re talking about current technological limits, unless otherwise stated, lest we end up with “yeah, everything is possible because DNA editing is possible”.
Even without technological intervention, we know some kinds of chemical exposure and cancers can alter chromosomes and literally change your X into a Y or vice versa. Or even turn it into a different shape than X or Y. Sometimes it a chromosome just goes missing entirely. Genetics are not always good at following the rules and they can break or perform strange new equations with mistaken values whenever a new cell is made. Organics are messy like that
Chromosomes delete, combine, duplicate, change and/or fuse bits of other chromosomes in unexpected places more than you might expect. It can happen to an embryo a few cells big right through a person's life.
Given the male sex is defined by the presence of any Y chromosome though (if we go by chromosome sex determination alone), if an arm breaks off the 46th chromosome after the embryo is established as XX, that XX foetus can develop as XY. Has it changed sex in the womb since it changed chromosomes? Are they female because they were conceived as XX, or male because they were born XY? It happens.
And if a foetus has Chromosome mosaicism, with both an XX and an XY embryo that fused into one foetus, it can be born with both sets of working genitals. Because they usually determine sex visually, they might only see the XY genitals and classify it as male. But the blood tests will sometimes show XX and sometimes XY, as much as 50% of the time if the fusion happened early. Which sex is that person in that case, and are they only 1 sex?
Are they still male becaude they have a Y if the first implanted embryo with XX chromosomes absorbed a smaller XY embryo, and therefore the final body is mostly XX?
And If a person with mosaicism as an adult surgically removes their XY-typical set/parts of their body including genitals, are they still XY? Even if the XY cells can be removed completely because they're only a small part of the person? Because that can happen too.
It only gets more complicated and uncertain from there, because there are a lot of variables at play when there's loads of organic data manipulation. But weird shit can and does happen for reasons we don't yet understand or know about. Depending on how you define sex and the point of sex determination, it is very likely someone has already changed sex.
I dare you to take HRT for a couple of years and then say that again (obviously not really, but you clearly don't give a shit about biology, which would prove you wrong, and are only here to spread ignorance in the name of transphobia)
If you just mean physical appearance then yes you can change your sex through hormones and surgery.
If you mean DNA then no, most AMAB will all have a X and a Y chromosome in every one of their cells which would technically make them male “sex”, despite whatever gender they identify as.
You can change your gender but you can’t really choose your biological sex. But it’s semantics really and not totally flushed out yet either.
I think if anything this is more important.
Sure, HS2 is a complete shambles and an embarrassment and we should be criticising what's going on, but this is a calculated and deliberate attack on human rights, and is a significantly bigger red flag that I wish more people took seriously.
He is a despicable right-conservative populist who obviously says this for all the wrong reasons but that does not change the fact that the statement by itself is a correct one. Humans can change their gender, that is possible because gender is a more or less internalised, socio-cultural and therefore psychological construct. The sex of a human on the other hand is an inherent, biological and physiological quality, written into each cells DNA. Therefore the sex of a person could only be changed by replacing chromosomes in every single cell of the individuals body. I very much hope for all trans people that it will become medically possible to change their sex in the future but at this point it is simply not medically possible and to deny this truth will not make the lifes of trans people better.
It’s really not necessary to bend over backwards to defend him. If he was talking about chromosomes he’d have had no reason to say anything because it would just been a pointless non sequitur with no political relevance. He obviously meant it as an attack against trans people’s existence.
I never defended him and I don´t get why you project such nonsense on me after I clearly wrote:
He is a despicable right-conservative populist who obviously says this for all the wrong reasons but that does not change the fact that the statement by itself is a correct one.
Are you unable to separate between the person and the statement?
Your definitions of sex and gender are not in universal use, and they are not the definitions used by Sunak. So his statement was not “correct”, because what it meant was not correct.
Your definitions of sex and gender are not in universal use
Interesting! What definitions are in universal use?
I think my definitions of sex and gender and the definitions of the Council of Europe seem pretty congruent though:
Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.”
Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed
Good point, I assume that he (as the conservative-populist he is) probably meant to say gender when he said sex and that he wanted to imply that people can not change gender (which is obviously false because gender is a social construct and not an inherent biological quality).
All that does not change the fact that the statement “people can not change their sex” itself is a correct one though. As far as I understand logic, if somebody says something correct while meaning something incorrect, that does not change the true statement into a false one.
He meant to say exactly what he said, and it was incorrect. He was not using your definition of sex. He was using it in the same sense as “I had a sex change operation”.
Or “Now I want to change the sex on my birth certificate”. Do you also chime in to inform people it’s wrong to do that?
This is true insomuch as you define sex as the 46th chromosome, but an argument can be made that that is overly simplistic. Nearly every cell in our body experiences some amount of sexual differentiation, and this is often mediated by Testosterone and Estrogen exposure. The complicating part is that trans people undergoing hormone replacement therapy do dramatically change their hormonal profile, and while some tissues are only meaningfully sensitive to sex hormones early in development (no amount of HRT is going to change your skeleton, for instance, or cause someone to grow a uterus), other tissues do remain sensitive to sex hormones and can meaningfully differentiate in adulthood causing significant medical effects. Estrogen, for instance, promotes blood clot formation, which is why (cis) women have a higher rate of them. Trans women who take estrogen, as would be expected, also have a higher rate of blood clots compared to cis men. If trans people are only changing gender, and gender is a strictly social phenomenon, we can't really explain this. Likewise, Testosterone can promote higher cholesterol levels that lead to heart attacks, which is why men have higher rates of them. Trans men taking Testosterone also experience this.
So, the fact of the matter is that trans people taking hormones go through biological changes that exactly parallel natural sexual differentiation, albeit in limited form. This has direct clinical relevance, as a trans man seeking cardiovascular medical support should not be treated the same way as a cis woman. Given this, there is a sound argument to be made that "biological sex" as defined in this way simply isn't sufficient to describe these kinds of people. At a biological level, they really do represent a kind of intermediate state in sexual differentiation, and this bears medical significance.
What it doesn't really bear, however, is social significance outside of very close intimate personal relationships. Regardless of whether you think having a strongly gendered society is a good thing or not, the fact is that we don't determine social gender through magical Chromosome-Scopes, but rather a complex mix of perceived traits, both of the body and things like voice, hair, clothing, personality, etc.
If trans people are only changing gender, and gender is a strictly social phenomenon we can’t really explain this
Yes we can… It’s the exact same as consuming a drug which changes how your body works. Arguing otherwise is akin to saying people who drink coffee have a different sex than those who don’t.
My point is that binary sex is an incomplete metric that doesn't accurately describe the biology of trans people. My wording was a bit clunky there, but if the meaningful traits that sex describes are mediated through hormonal profiles, and hormonal profiles do not necessarily match the 46th chromosome, there's a strong argument to be made that what we're really describing when we're talking about sex in humans is not the value of a chromosome, but rather the pattern of sexual differentiation throughout the body, and the fact of the matter is that that is not a strict binary. Binary sex based on chromosomes is not capable of meaningfully distinguishing between a cis woman and a trans man despite there being many significant biological differences between them that are produce in the exact same way as they are between cis women and men.
Imagine knowing the last 13 years of Tory rule have been such a disaster that you have to spend all your time whipping up a fury against .01% of the population in the gutter press to the point where transphobic hate crimes have risen in Britain by like 60%
Government sure is trying to fix what ain’t broke with their funding cuts, tho. For now, schools seem to still be doing their thing, but I’m not all too certain on how long that will continue.
No country is safe from the “we shouldn’t educate children unless it’s profitable” and “women only exist to have said children” situation, unfortunately. You would hope that examples like this would push forward a universal agenda of better public schooling anywhere, but instead the agenda coming off it from the rich is generally “oh no, we don’t want everyone to be well educated, just my children, who will specifically act like me as they age and increase the gap”
Never-mind that that a lot of the upsides of living in Finland, even as a member of the upper class, are thanks to the extremely high average level of education.
Where exactly do these people think all these highly competent workers able to fuel highly profitable and innovative companies are coming from?
But because the return on investment of education is paid back over a life-time, not quarterly, I guess it doesn’t count. I pray these dinosaurs die off and allow new generations into government before it’s too late. Luckily, that IS slowly beginning to happen.
Except there have been a ton of studies that show it IS profitable…in the long term. But it’s profitable in that it saves a ton of money in things like prison systems. So it’s not profitable to the right people. If we spend money on education, private prisons get less money and oligarchs have to actually pay people a living wage to make their clothing and street signs.
I think private schools should be banned. Too easy for the rich or even upper income class to gut public schools when you don’t use them. Everyone getting the same education chance is what I call equal opportunity.
Finland does actually have a private sector for health care.
The difference tends to be in how fast you get appointments for non-critical health issues. If I have a cough I’m worried about, I can go to my employer provided healthcare and speak to a doctor via phone in literally 20 minutes.
The public system atm would diagnose me with an automated quiz and determine my case to be “non-urgent”. I would eventually get a doctors appointment, if I’m persistent and find all the right numbers to call, online forms to fill in, etc.
If the matter is urgent however, the public system takes things very seriously. And private sector doctors will even forward you to a public hospital in some cases, if they don’t have the staff or equipment needed to help you in a particular case. With concussions for example, I’ve just walked into the local ER and been taken care of right away. If you need an ambulance, you don’t need to weigh your life against bankruptcy.
The public system is also efficient (except when it isn’t). That means you won’t always see staff spend their time on bedside manner. Their job is to keep you healthy, not happy (unless you’re there for mental issues). In my experience the private sector has a higher standard for customer service, because you’re not just a patient when you pay for your care. Your satisfaction matters more since they actually care about getting repeat customers.
Meanwhile, public healthcare wold prefer you never come back, which is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes bad.
I use both sides of the system, and as I already mentioned, the two sides inter-operate in many cases. While it’s been a huge mess at times, Finland is investing in a patient-data-management system called APOTTI which lets you switch doctors and care-providers seamlessly taking your patient-history with you. I once got x-rayd by my employee healthcare, then got sent to a hand surgeon in the public sector so I could get the diagnosis from those x-rays the same day. I left the private hospital and walked into the public one like they were operated by the same company. It’s amazing.
I guess the rationale is that you give precedence to the people paying for the healthcare (middleclass workers) to get them back to contributing to workforce (and earning those tax euros) as soon as possible. Also the decision is done by the companies (trying to keep their employees in working condition, also a big perk when employees are comparing different employers) and not the government so you can’t just decide to move the money like you just described.
Companies are by law required to offer health care. So when you’re working, you can choose which to use. Often work place healthcare is for those more urgent, yet smaller things. If you get cancer, you go to the public system or pay for private care.
But everyone here can get free care, which is the key take. You can just get some things faster via the workplace, or you can also pay to get a team of specialists or whatnot.
The system isn’t that split. In fact, it can work the other way around, in that a public doctor can send you to a private one when warranted, and the public system will then cover the cost.
In emergencies you can also walk into the ER of a private hospital and have the cost covered under the public system.
If you want to pay for a doctor to calm your hypochondria right now while small talking about something meaningless… Why not?
Also, my employer providing me with healthcare, isn’t optional, it’s legally mandated. If you have a job, you have the option of going to whatever private provider your employer has contracted. This is to make sure whatever sick leave you end up needing, is taken care of in a timely fashion so you can get back to work asap.
The only reason you can’t just walk into a public hospital and see a doctor the way you can with a private one, is that the public sector will actually make sure you need the care then and there before spending its resources on you. It’s triage, on a national scale.
The private and public sectors are integrated and inter-operable. This means the private sector hasn’t become a price-gouging insurance mine-field. Instead it’s more like an extension of the public system, serving as a more expensive but expedited channel, used where warranted.
Well, there are edge cases for private schools that would not make sense being solved by public schools. I moved a lot in my life (still do), and having access to schools in one of my children 's main language is an important thing for them. Those schools are still following local regulations though
Yeah let’s pull exceptional students down to the baseline. Every child should be forced to go through the government approved curriculum, nothing can go wrong with that.
Private schools are based. Much better education than public schools. Obviously I don’t want public schools to be gutted, so let’s make laws preventing that rather than preventing children from getting a good education that public school will never be able to provide.
Look at the Netherlands for a good example then. Private schools aren’t banned but public schools are so good even the princesses go to them. You’re just so used to public schools being underfunded that you think they can’t work. The reason you’d want to ban private schools is because it creates an incentive for the rich and powerful to fix your shitty public schools.
Why do we need to ban private schools if Netherlands was able to create good public schools without doing so? There is a limit of how good you can make public schools when you have no selection criteria. Private schools are based. I like that there is an option outside of government run institutions.
You have gifted programs in the public school. Your thinking shows the exact problem, that public schools can only “pull students down”. You can only see public schools as bad instead of, you know, funding them to be good. How about funding them so they pull everyone up, huh?
Then you go on to conspiratorial thinking to vilify, gasp, public schools.
A genius being around average people will pull them down. It’s a good thing to concentrate our smartest children in an environment that lets them learn with equally intelligent peers. There might not be enough hyper intelligent kids in a geographical region to warrant the resources required to fully support that minority of students. Nothing I said was conspiratorial.
Dude, gifted programs. Advanced classes. They are together. This is really easy. Any reasonably sized school will have enough to fill out an advanced class.
And this ensures all students can live up to their potential! How about that? Instead of only the ones that can afford stupid high tuition. Who have to pass screening, and wait times, and wait lists, and then long commutes. If you want more advanced people in society, the way you do that is opening the doors to more people, at all points in their life, right where they live.
And what the other guy said about selective public schools.
And yes you’re on about government approved education dogwhistle and authoritarianism. Dude, you’re right down conspiratorial thinking.
Almost every good private school has extensive financial aid programs. At the private school I went to, they had blind financial aid, meaning you got accepted first and if you couldn’t afford it, you would get in for free, so there was no discrimination against poor people.
I’m not against gifted programs and more resources being allocated to public schools. But private schools play an important role in this imperfect system and getting rid of them “because it’s unfair” just brings people down.
It’s not a conspiracy to suggest that public schools abide by a government approved curriculum. You are way too sensitive. You can improve public schools without making private schools illegal, is my point.
You know what’s even better than financial aid? Not needing it in the first place! Because you have excellent public schools. Which works for everyone, at all times, in all locations.
Had a bad year and couldn’t get the grades to make it to private school that one year? Well now you can pay attention to the excellent teachers you have in public school.
Can’t take the 1+ hr bus ride to a school far away? Well you can have an excellent school 10 minutes away.
And this all also starts in grade 1. Or Kindergarten if we get that sorted out. So you have good education before you ever have marks in any substantial way. This starts wayyyyy earlier than you’re portraying. How do you think someone can develop at later stages when they don’t have good schooling to begin with? Really I can’t emphasize this enough. Smart people don’t just pop up out of the blue and then we whisk them away to private school. How do you think people become smart or capable in the first place? We need good, public, accessible, education from the very start.
m “because it’s unfair” just brings people down.
Oh you’re still stuck in your mentality that public schools “bring people down”. I think you have this because that’s all you’ve ever seen. You can’t seem to conceive of good public schools, that have gifted programs, that don’t “bring people down”, that can in fact bring people up.
When rich and upper class don’t use the public schools, there is zero incentive to make them work. As seen by the current state of the US. It’s so bad that, like I said, you can’t even seem to conceive of a public system that doesn’t “bring people down”. It’s so bad that you’ve defined the public system as “bringing people down”. That it must “bring people down”. You’ve said it multiple times.
And yes saying “government approved education” is a thinly veiled dog whistle. If there was any doubt it was gone when you said authoritarianism. You just don’t like that I called it out, so you have to say I’m “way too sensitive”.
I’m not saying the public school system indiscriminately brings people down, but for the intellectual top 1% of kids it definitely can. stop thinking in absolutes. I think it’s a good thing for smart kids to hang out with smart kids. Believe it or not, different degrees of intelligence require different needs to allow children to reach their full potential. I believe that private schools are great in making sure that potential is met. It’s up to the schools themselves to allocate funding rather than a government bureaucracy, which is notoriously inefficient and frankly always will be, especially at scale. Advocate for improving funding to public schools so private schools would be unnecessary instead of making the choice on behalf of people.
for the intellectual top 1% of kids it definitely can.
Really? Do I have to add caveats to everything I say? It’s already long enough. But this is also about wayyyy more than the top 1% of kids, this is about everyone. You want a more capable society? That means everyone.
I think it’s a good thing for smart kids to hang out with smart kids.
Again, advanced classes. This is so simple.
Believe it or not, different degrees of intelligence require different needs
Again, advanced classes.
private schools are great in making sure that potential is met
Again, advanced classes.
And again, this means more students potential is reached. And that more students have the opportunity to become smart and educated from the very beginning. I notice you don’t respond to any of that, you’re back to acting like smart people just spring out of the blue to be whisked away to private schools. Think about how many people never intellectually developed in the first place because they never had good education to begin with. You want more smart people in society? The solution is public schools to develop those smart people.
government bureaucracy, which is notoriously inefficient and frankly always will be, especially at scale.
And now you define public schools as inefficient and all those connotations. Just like how you defined things before.
Seriously, it seems you can not even conceive of good public schools that yes serve and educate top students well (but again these students don’t just pop up out if the blue, they are educated from the very start).
But this is also about wayyyy more than the top 1% of kids, this is about everyone. You want a more capable society? That means everyone.
Hmms seems like you are implying here that it does actually bring those 1% of kids down for the betterment of the rest. I thought it wouldn’t bring kids down?
It’s a simple difference of opinions. I believe that private schools are better empowered to allocate resources to produce the best result since it bypasses government bureaucracy. That’s it. Acting like “advanced classes” is some sort of own that defeats the purpose of private schools is a cop out frankly.
You want more smart people in society? The solution is public schools to develop those smart people.
This can happen without making private schools illegal.
Hmms seems like you are implying here that it does actually bring those 1% of kids down for the betterment of the rest. I thought it wouldn’t bring kids down?
Lol no I didn’t imply that. See that “also”?Now you’re making things up. I thought you were better than this.
Because this is also about all of society (see that also?) But I see your game now. You have to try to limit this to top 1%. It’s a fake construct on my argument that you have to limit things to. I wonder if you’re going to strawman this now.
It’s a simple difference of opinions
I think the basis of this is that you can not even conceive of public schools that serve both top students and students well. (Insert all the words: also, in addition, etc),
Acting like “advanced classes” is some sort of own that defeats the purpose of private schools is a cop out frankly.
Lol that addresses your arguments where I said it. You want top students to hang out together? They do, in advanced classes.
You want their needs to be met? They are, in advanced classes.
Etc.
And all the other factors that you never respond to, like availability, travel time, wait lists, that smart people don’t spring out of the blue to be whisked away to private schools and that they are developed and educated from the start.
This can happen without making private schools illegal.
Like I already said, when rich and upper class don’t use the public system there is zero incentive to make it work well.
Really, you can’t even conceive of a public system that works well for top and also (see that also?) students.
Yeah I see your other game too, you want me to excessively add caveats to everything I say now. The first time may have been legit, but now you read implications that aren’t there just so I have to add more caveats. Nice games. But I think that shows you’ve graduated to bad faith and I’m just pointing out what I’ve already said because it addresses it all, so I think I’m done. Cheers.
The gifted program at my kids school is based on a single standardized test and practically speaking there is no way to appeal. It isn’t some perfect system.
So… marks. And I assume you can enter at most times.
So NOT ability to pay $$$, and ability to live in a certain area, and ability to have parents with pull, and ability to pass subjective screening (oh you went to what school before? Well this other student went to this other school we like more).
I don’t know why you are assuming when I am right here and you can just ask. Well okay I know why you are assuming I am just going to pretend that I don’t.
It is one standardized test given once a year. Kid is sick during it? No appeal. Kid had a bad teacher that year? No appeal. One single thing goes wrong on a single day of an entire year and your kid lags behind for at least another year. No teacher recommendations, no gpa, no retest, no other options. Maybe next time ask before you assume.
Oh and it isn’t some great equalizer either. I see tutoring places bragging that they can get your kid a better score on the test. If you have the money and the time you can get your kid in the program.
Dude I’m assuming because that’s how I’ve seen it work. Once a year, cool. Pretty much what I thought. I don’t know why you’re trying to turn this into something else. Boy and you run with that.
So your argument is more criteria. Ok cool.
And see my previous message about all the things that it’s not about. It doesn’t need to be 1000% equalizer for public schools to be a pretty good friggin thing.
Even if nationwide absolute mediocre student body was a goal banning private schools wouldn’t achieve it.
Next you would have to ban tutoring companies, after that you would have to ban test prep, after that private tutors, after that you would need restrictions on funding for all schools (which wouldn’t work since not all schools have the exact same funding needs), you would still have advantages. One kid is closer to the library, one kid has a parent who was a teacher, one kid has a stay at home parent with the resources to help them with homework, etc.
Nothing short of an absolute police state of fairness would be able to achieve this.
Next you would have to ban tutoring companies, after that you have to ban test prep
Lol no you don’t have to. Nice slippery slope. You do what the government can do, which is fund schools. This is really easy, but you want to slippery slope that it must lead to all these other fearmongering things which it doesn’t. Like lol at, sorry to say, your absurdity.
So back to schools. You fund them all the same. Where I live all public schools are funded the same in the whole province. This is really easy.
It isn’t a slippery slope. It is me showing you what is needed to achieve the goal. A slippery slope is when someone argues that if A then B must follow and hasn’t justified it, it is not at all the same as me saying if your goal is X you will need to do what you just said and more.
You fund them all the same.
I highly doubt your province is doing that because it doesn’t freaken work. This school has more kids that have special needs, this other school has more kids whose parents speak a different language at home, this school needed a major boiler upgrade last year, this school has poor students so needs to provide more school supplies, this school is more remote so they had to pay extra to get X, this school is more urban so it needs to pay all teachers a bit more, this school had an unusually low number of 2nd graders this year…
No government is so fucking stupid to try to do what you are saying. You can start with a baseline funding number and modify it as needed but you aren’t saying that. You are saying the equivalent of lawful stupid alignment for accounting.
Dude it’s a slippery slope, you literally went off how you “have to” ban all these other things. And the answer is simple, no you don’t have to ban those other things.
Oh I see what you’re doing, you’re making a bad faith argument ad absurdem. That it must be 1000000% equal, no adjustments for anything, ever!!! Wow and lol. If I really to spell it out, you fund based on number of students of each ____. Yes repairs and maintenance are funded as they are needed lol. Yes you have baseline funding for small schools.
In the small chance that any of what you say is good faith, you seem to be stuck in this it must be 10000000000% equal!!! mentality. Ban everything!!! To make it 10000000% equal!!! mentality.
Dude, this is really simple. Fund public schools well. See above. Peace.
I wish that PM Sunak was right about the result of this, because a class war is exactly what the UK needs. Unfortunately, his track record tells me that he’ll be wrong about that as well.
Also, I always lol at the rich trying to appropriate class warfare language to mean that the poors will make fun of, or bear greater resentment to, the ruling class.
It’s like saying that global warming is actually environmental terrorism, and that the rain must be held accountable.
Finland's schools are really good for a number of reasons, I'm not sure that private vs public is the only reason worth attributing it to, although i understand the context of the article makes it especially relevant.
For example, Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing. The state subsidizes parents, paying per month for every child until age 17. 97%* of 6-year-olds attend public preschool, where children begin some academics. Schools provide food, medical care, counseling and taxi service if needed. Student health care is free.
(* a decade ago, not sure if numbers and strategies are still accurate, I lifted it from a Smithsonian article from 2011 because I couldn't remember specifics. Please correct me Suomi friends)
When you don’t allow rich people with the most resources to create special areas for their precious babies to get ahead, they suddenly care about funding public education … from which the rest of that stuff you mentioned flows.
People need to realize that if the rich are boarding a different ship than you, they’re actively sinking yours for profit.
I totally agree with public education and not funding private schools with public money - I'm not a fan of segregation. I also don't think that's its necessary to ban private schools before implementing other helpful policies, like maternity leave or health care. My point is more that these things all combine to create good public education rather than pointing at just one part and suggesting it is the fix. I think ignoring the other components leads to disappointment when the single-solution proposals fail to deliver the expected results.
To be totally real, I also wanted to tell people what specific things they can ask their elected officials for in their own communities as a way of achieving more equitable outcomes globally. There's no reason not to copy Finland's homework. Except that Finland doesn't set homework.
If you want to copy Finland, learn from and copy their election system first.
Don’t bother asking your elected officials, because evidence shows that they don’t represent their voters, they represent their donors. This is due to American’s electoral system, specifically first past the post voting combined with electoral college. This prevents more than 2 parties, which prevents real competition in politics, which makes it easy for the richest people around to buy up all the representation.
Such is our reality now where they can say ‘Sure, democrats and republicans are clearly on the take, but what are you gonna do about? Vote 3rd party and waste your vote?’, and they’ll be right. Election laws protect the 2 parties, because they’ve slowly changed them over time to do so. Even party primaries are a new addition.
So anyone wanting change in the USA needs to attack their safe seats and open up the playing field so we can have real representation again. Then you can ask your reps for stuff.
Neither I nor the article am American. If you feel that pressuring your elected officials in the US is not worthwhile and that certain things need to happen first, I understand, and I wish you luck in your efforts. For those of us who aren't from the US, I hope the knowledge of Finland's social policies is useful in your context. Keeping an eye on how others are succeeding can be helpful.
Ah, sorry for assuming. Although it sounds like England uses FPTP as well in some elections if you’re from there. I assume thats why we got Boris and Trump: idiot twins.
Not English or a FPTP system citizen either, I'm afraid. If it is any consolation, we have elected unfit leaders using a ranked voting system too. It's part of the reason I advocate for multiple-front approaches to social betterment - all parts of all systems can be compromised by bad actors.
I'm also I'm not familiar enough with how Finland's election system works to make a direct comparison there, I only have experience in public education policy, not electoral systems.
Ironically, Finland uses an election system that was once proposed by Thomas Jefferson, ‘American Founding Father’ - the ‘Dhondt method’ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method. (it was also independently re-invented by D’Hondt in Belgium)
(4) The right to establish private schools shall be guaranteed. Private schools that serve as alternatives to state schools shall require the approval of the state and shall be subject to the laws of the Länder. Such approval shall be given when private schools are not inferior to the state schools in terms of their educational aims, their facilities or the professional training of their teaching staff and when segregation of pupils according to the means of their parents will not be encouraged thereby. Approval shall be withheld if the economic and legal position of the teaching staff is not adequately assured.
(5) A private elementary school shall be approved only if the education authority finds that it serves a special educational interest or if, on the application of parents or guardians, it is to be established as a denominational or interdenominational school or as a school based on a particular philosophy and no state elementary school of that type exists in the municipality.
(Emphasis mine). Private schools over here are generally either confessional, follow different pedagogic approaches (e.g. Waldorf, Sudbury) or, last but not least, serve a national minority, e.g. there’s plenty of Danish schools in northern Schleswig-Holstein which are, legally, private schools but teach to the Danish curriculum (in Danish) while making sure that kids also get German graduation papers. And yes they generally all receive state funds. Can’t find proper numbers right now but ballpark 75 to 85% of what public schools get per student.
Weird fact: In 1875, Karl Marx ripped what became the SDAP (which eventually through mergers and name changes became the SDP) a new one when they argued for state-provided education, and argued that rather than people getting an education from the state, “the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people” (Critique of the Gotha Programme)
In the same section he argued that the then-US model of private or locally run education to publicly set standards was far preferable.
Of course, this was at a time when the German/Prussian government was deeply authoritarian, something Marx and his family had experienced first-hand, so I’m sure that coloured his views of state-run education.
State provided education is ancient in Germany, though, but implementation was spotty. Luther (yes that one) called for universal education in 1524, calling for six hours a day school for boys and one for girls, all learning to read and write and the boys maths and physics and stuff (the girls would be taught home economics at home). Pfalz-Zweibrücken were the first to introduce universal and mandatory public education for both girls and boys in 1592, not just in Germany but the world. There had been separate curricula for boys and girls until 1970, alas they largely threw out much very useful stuff in the unification process. Like home economics. But I digress.
As said though implementation was spotty (and way worse in Catholic areas than Lutheran ones), there initially also was resistance from the population, but it took up speed after enlightenment. In 1816 Prussian statistics said 60% of kids attended school, raising to 82% in 1846. This is approximately the context that SDAP demand is to be understood in: They wanted proper universal education, seeing the difference it made. It doesn’t really matter where you learn to read and write, it’s still learning where to read and write. Universal secondary and higher education were still way off by then.
All in all this is rather rich coming from Marx, himself very much part of the educated elite: He studied law at university, whereas a significant portion of workers didn’t even visit primary. Engels, you know, the bourgeois fat cat, actually had a way better grasp on the Lumpen than Marx: His family was pietist and as such he spent his childhood years visiting a public (not private) school and playing with worker kids, despite his elevated socio-economic status.
Which actually brings me to another particularity of the German system: Visiting a school is mandatory. There’s been cases of US-influenced fundamental Christians wanting to homeschool because “public schools teach witchcraft” (you know the type), every court they appealed to didn’t give a rat’s arse about the parents opinion but ruled that the kid has a right to attend school and be exposed to the majority population, even if that’s to learn to valiantly stand firm in the subculture their parents want them to be part of. They ultimately seeked asylum in the US, where they’re a playball of the culture war there – they could’ve just moved to, say, Austria, and wouldn’t now face deportation.
To be honest, I mostly like dragging that quote out because it confounds people’s expectations.
Marx certainly wasn’t arguing against universal provisioning of education - that had been a demand in the Communist Manifesto for example - but against state control of the curriculum, which really must be understood in large part I suspect as a direct outcome of his own personal experience with the Prussian government repression before he left, and fear it’d end up used for government propaganda, rather than any kind of objective assessment of quality.
But that was very much a product of a very specific time, and quite possibly personal resentments mixed in. I suspect had he seen the relative state of the US and German education systems today, he’d certainly have preferred the German model.
inews.co.uk
Oldest